Grist Magazine on the Christian Right

[iskra]

Here's an interesting article on the Christian Right from Grist Magazine, an environmentalist publication.

The Godly Must Be Crazy
Christian-right views are swaying politicians and threatening the environment
By Glenn Scherer
27 Oct 2004

A kind of secular apocalyptic sensibility pervades much contemporary writing about our current world. Many books about environmental dangers, whether it be the ozone layer, or global warming or pollution of the air or water, or population explosion, are cast in an apocalyptic mold.
- Historian Paul Boyer

When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale; the sky vanished like a scroll that is rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place ...
- Revelation 6:12-14

Abortion. Same-sex marriage. Stem-cell research.

U.S. legislators backed by the Christian right vote against these issues with near-perfect consistency. That probably doesn't surprise you, but this might: Those same legislators are equally united and unswerving in their opposition to environmental protection.

Forty-five senators and 186 representatives in 2003 earned 80- to 100-percent approval ratings from the nation's three most influential Christian right advocacy groups -- the Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, and Family Resource Council. Many of those same lawmakers also got flunking grades -- less than 10 percent, on average -- from the League of Conservation Voters last year.

These statistics are puzzling at first. Opposing abortion and stem-cell research is consistent with the religious right's belief that life begins at the moment of conception. Opposing gay marriage is consistent with its claim that homosexual activity is proscribed by the Bible. Both beliefs are a familiar staple of today's political discourse. But a scripture-based justification for anti-environmentalism -- when was the last time you heard a conservative politician talk about that?

Read more @ www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/scherer-christian/

[1949]

From the portions of that article I read, it made it sound as if there is no advocacy of the destruction of the environment in the Bible. But there is.

Wallis [referring to the author of The Soul of Politics Jim Wallis -ed.] even attempts to base his "notion of environmental justice" in "the prophetic vision of Isaiah. `They will not hurt or destroy on my holy mountain; for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.'"(p. 179) If we turn to this part of Isaiah, we find that it is prophesying about things that were supposed to happen more or less in Isaiah's own time, several thousand years ago. It is predicting the rise of a new Kingdom in that time, ruled by descendants of David, which would bring together Israel and Judah.

And what does Isaiah say that new, united Kingdom will do? It will attack the Philistines on the west and plunder the people to the east. Not much fabric for a "seamless garment" here! (Isaiah, chapter 11) Nor, for that matter, is there much basis for "environmental justice." At the very end of this chapter, we are told that "The Lord" will dry up the Gulf of Suez and will bring hot wind to dry up the Euphrates, so that his people of Israel can easily return to their promised land. And, if that is not enough, we learn in chapter 24 that "The Lord" is going to devastate the earth and make it waste--the earth will dry up and wither, the sky as well as the earth will decay, because god has declared a curse on the earth. And, again, we hear in chapter 34 how the rivers of Edom will turn into tar and the soil into sulfur. Isaiah is literally full of passages like this.

"Communist Morality vs Biblical Morality: From Preaching From a Pulpit of Bones--Putting an End to `Sin'": rwor.org/a/1240/bamorality.htm

[Eanon]

It seems that the context that this passage is quoted in is incorrect. It says that God may wreak havoc on the land and do what He will to it, it does not imply that humans should also do this.

I'm curious as to what your intention with this quote is?