Thank you, Melanie, for these encouraging words.  Anger is always destructive, it always inflicts wounds, even the anger of well-meaning people, striving for virtuous causes.  Righteous indignation may indeed be righteous, and power always deserves to have truth spoken to it.  But in the end, if and when everything is settled, we are going to have to learn to get along with those whom we angrily opposed.  I am glad that you are hopeful that reconciliation is possible.

Thank you also for using the powerful term "the extinction crisis."  Plenty of writers in Grist refer often enough to aspects of that crisis; but I think it is fair to say that that impressive term is not much employed by them.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

"they just don't necessarily talk about their spirituality at Club meetings. And most of the members of my church will tell you that they gain real insights into God when they are out in the natural world. They feel a sense of connection with the Creator when they enjoy creation, and they feel that it's part of their calling to protect it."

It's a spiritual reconvergence.  Where the real spirit comes directly from nature.  And surprisingly fits just fine into most organized religion?

Who is surprised by that though?  Only the radical religious right that has tried to villify environmentalism for political ends.  

The Roves of this world, who cynically use evangelicals for political ends while calling them nuts, are not surprised at all.  And it scares the hell out of them.  Given the nature/spirit connection, corporatist anti-environmentalism falls far short of reality.

Hold a church service or an enviro-political meeting out in the woods  sometime.  

Great essay Melanie!  Great work.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

that according to the Bible God has already destroyed the world a few times before and plans to do so again- I don't believe such a view of the reality leads to environmental stewardship. I'll take a secular ethic over the Bible any day.

J.S.

Assistant Professor, Monterey Institute of International Studies

there's the way we live our lives each day that's supposed to count for something. So thinking what we do to the Earth doesn't matter because God will destroy it someday anyway, is kind of counter-productive if you're concerned about salvation, which I'd guess most Christians who take the Bible literally are. Not being one I can't say for sure.

Holding a church service in the woods is a great idea. I believe there are churches (and not just Pagan) who have done it.

I've been putting together my little newsletter, Gaian Voices, and came across this quote I love:

"If you take the Christian Bible and put it out in the wind and rain, soon the paper on which the words are printed will be gone. Our bible is the wind and the rain. (Salish Elder)

... the "all or nothing", "all or nothing" idea that to head off the environmental crisis, one must completely root out and destroy every religion, starting with Christianity.  

(I don't want to get into a debate on theology, but your characterization is extraordinarily, almost deliberately simplistic in a distorted way.  Debating interpretations of specific Bible verses is one of those boring Internet atheist/theist "drop your pants and whip out the tape measure" games that can be amusing, but have little relevance.  The real question goes far beyond your simplification, and no, Lynn White's essay isn't the final word).  

Let's leave aside the feasibility and the morality of it for a second (I can think of a couple of places in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries that tried to destroy religion in the name of reason and secularism, and all of them seemed to involve very bad things happening to very large numbers of people) - this "all or nothing" idea is nothing more than an excuse for paralysis.  The entire human race WILL NOT give up religion in the next 10 years.  Ain't gonna happen.  It does not appear that the environmental crisis will politely wait until humanity has a chance to get PC (philosophically correct).  

Therefore, if it's a choice between having to hold your noses and tolerate the existence of people who think differently than you and watching the extinction of humanity and every higher life form on this planet because you didn't want to deal with "impure" people, I'll take the former.  Every time.  

I'm trying not too sound too exasperated, but this is a shining example of what I talked about in my first post, when I asked whether I was allowed to be an environmentalist.  The attempts at a "unified revolutionary critique", I think, are disastrous mistakes nearly every time.  There is no reason why everyone must be united on every issue in order to work with them.  On this issue, I couldn't care less whether or not you believe as I do in everything else.  I would only ask for the same courtesy.  

Remember those Saturday morning cartoons when the good guys and bad guys (say, the Superfriends and Lex Luthor) would temporarily band together to fight a greater threat?  That's what I'm talking about.    

We can fight over other things later.  Let's do something now.      

I have never once mentioned anything having to do with the incompatibility of the individual practice of religion and being an environmentalist. They are not mutually exclusive and I never said they were. As to trying to destroy religion, I do advocate that. I advocate the eventual transcendence of religion and the slow withering away of its influence. I would never advocate any organized effort to eradicate religion of any sort- in fact, I would fight vigoruously for the freedom of everyone to practice their own religion. Reason has destroyed the intellectual basis for slavery, creationism, and "flat-Earth" thinking (even if extremists in some areas still cling to these ideologies) and it will do the same to religion, but through entirely peaceful means. If I can help speed up the process through my writing and speaking I think we will all be the better for it. As to your allusion to communism and fascism I oppose those ideologies even more strongly than religion, and they were as much the antithesis of reason as anything the world has ever seen. They are essentially straw men in the debate because all serious scholars of secular humanism have been the strongest defenders of liberty and freedon, including the freedom of religion; our Founding Fathers being the prime examples.

J.S.

Assistant Professor, Monterey Institute of International Studies

it is simply false thinking to believe that a world without religion means uniformity of thought- it simply means that we stop believing in genocidal fairy tales and things for which we have no evidence- it still leaves plenty of room for disagreement and disversity.

J.S.

Assistant Professor, Monterey Institute of International Studies

   JackH is correct, religion is not going to go away in the next ten years, so if we are going to save the planet, we need to work together.

   (Of course, what all of the posts about religion seem to be talking about is "White" religion.  I can't get Moyers show, but most of what I see written about Christians seems to imply that they are all white (or that only the white ones count, maybe).)

   Since Christianity in America is largely segregated, we may need different approaches to talk to Christians of different colors.  They may have different concerns and even beliefs.

   Both sides need to practice a bit of tolerance.  Non-believers can accept listening to the preaching they don't believe in during events, and believers can stop telling non-believers they are evil beings who are going to hell.... (There may be better examples, but these two came to mind) (grin).

   In any case, save the world first, then fight over it!

patrick

   Hi JjwFmme,

    To be honest, I don't read Hitchens much, and Dawkins I read for his science, not politics.  But thanks for the links, they were interesting and thought provoking.

   (I like a lot of his scientific writing.)

   I did prefer the let's get along approach of the late Stephen Jay Gould, but that's me. (grin).

   I have good friends among all major religions (and quite a few minor ones too).  What they all have in common is a tolerant and embracing outlook (which I think comes from their personality, but they insist comes from their beliefs).

   Tolerance is a funny thing, I find myself getting along better with tolerant people I disagree with than I sometimes do with intolerant people I agree with.... (go figure!).

   But there are issues of tolerance not just on the part of the non-religious towards religion, but the other way around.  

   I absolutely hope we can find common ground at least through global warming, then let future generations battle over the rest!!

   (or not)

patrick

   Hi Jabailo, I will check those links when I have time, thanks!  They sound interesting.

   Hi JJWFmme,

      Mutual respect must be as real as it is mutual, or it doesn't work.

      Which doesn't mean it has to tolerate everything and anything (for instance, I consider prejudice "disrespectful").

      One idea is to have a bunch of different tents working on the same goal, rather than trying to fit all of the hotheads at either end in the same tent (then they tend to start yelling and everyone else leaves).

     (grin).

     I am not sure technocrats are any better than anyone else at understanding and articulating problems and solutions.  

     There is often a difference between saying "all are welcome" and meaning it.  Having been an "outsider" in different groups, I can readily recognize which ones really welcome me and which say they do, but don't.

     And so can others.

     I like to look for groups which really welcome different kinds of people (they tend to have them) as opposed to groups which say "everyone is welcome", but strangely seemed to be composed of only one kind of person...

     (See, I am trying to describe tolerance without labels... don't know it if makes sense.)

     Years ago, I sat up all night drinking whiskey with a (then) leader of the religious right.  In person, I found him charming, funny and quite friendly.  Yet, were we to meet outside that particular place, we would have been sworn enemies.

     Even our enemies are still human, alas, which doesn't make them any less enemies.

patrick