I’m not the only one who’s spotted the religious- like dogmatism associated with modern-day environmentalism. Here from
political guru Michael Barone:
Over the past decade, [Gallup] has been asking Americans whether the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated or generally correct. From 1998 to 2007, except for the run-up to the 2004 election, they said it was generally serious by roughly a 2-1 margin -- 66 to 30% in 2006, for example. But in March 2009, that margin slipped to only 57 to 41%. [And] last month, pollster Scott Rasmussen found that only 34% believes that global warming is caused by human activity, while 48% said it is caused by long-term planetary trends. That's almost exactly the opposite of what he found 12 months before -- 47 to 34% the other way around. However, 48% of the . . . elite continues to believe global warming is man-made.
For liberal elites, belief in . . . global warming has taken on the character of religious faith [emphasis added]. We have sinned (by . . . driving SUVs); we must atone (by . . . recycling); we must repent (by supporting . . . cap and trade schemes). You may notice that the "we" in question is usually . . . ordinary American citizens. The liberal elite is less interested in giving up its luxuries (Al Gore purchases carbon offsets to compensate for his huge mansion and private jet travel) than in changing the lifestyle of the masses, who selfishly insist on living in suburbs . . . Ordinary Americans are seen not as responsible fellow citizens building stable communities but as greedy masses, who must be disciplined to live according to the elite's religious dogmas.
I’m not the only one who’s spotted the religious- like dogmatism associated with modern-day environmentalism. Here from political guru Michael Barone:
2 comments:
MeiMei says:
Dad, I am frankly horrified by this posting, especially having spent the past 3 months traveling the world looking with my own eyes at the environmental destruction we humans have done with no thought for the consequences. Mother Nature is now fighting back. The Himalayan glaciers are melting FASTER Than expected, with 2 B relying on them, 3 B by the time they're gone and 7 major Asian rivers become seasonal in 25 years. I have seen horrific pollution in India and right here in the USA, with a 8000 square mile Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico - there were NO dead zones prior to the industrial revolution. Louisiana is sinking at the rate of a football field every 30 minutes because we've over-engineered the Mississippi River so there are no more floodplains to naturally build new land. 80% of the game fish we eat - tuna, swordfish, are gone from the ocean, and 90% of the sharks.
This is NOT A LIBERAL AGENDA!!!
Who is suffering?? THE POOR. Not you, in Hawaii. Not Republicans with all their money. No, the poor. Women in Africa who have to walk 4 hours to fetch water. Bangladesh which will be underwater in 20 years. People who rely on the river for agriculture. Poor people in DC who live along the most polluted river in America, which receives sewage from all of DC and parts of Maryland and smells foul and can't be fished or swum in anymore. The people who need to drink the water of and bathe in the Ganges. The shrimpers who live off the Gulf of Mexico. This affecting people's lives - now, today. Why have cancer rates gone up? Why have asthma rates?
We must stop our mindless overconsumption.
WHY do you think that being an environmentalist means being a democrat? We're ALL environmentalists
- we have no choice, we live on Earth!!! Unless you want to end up living in a bubble of purified air and water??
Furthermore, being pro environment does NOT mean being anti business or anti development! On the contrary, Obama is talking about creating millions of green jobs.
As Steve Black, a conventional, industrial agricultural farmer who is your age, a self-described REPUBLICAN who voted for MCCAIN said, "everything I'm doing to protect the environment also makes economic sense." This does not have to be an either/or choice! Why fight environmentalism? Why not be proud to take care of our earth, to love it as Jesus taught to love all creatures, to treasure it and treat it well? Why are "Christian" values to consume mindlessly, take unconsciouslessly, use and abuse??? Why not to carefully consider the impact of our actions?
I don’t think identifying climate change as taking on “the character of religious faith” is the same as attacking environmentalism or even climate change as some hoax. Religion is serious business, as is science. It’s just that they occupy two different worlds. I would argue climate change belongs in the world of science—provable, based on observed and measured fact—not something we are unable to prove or disprove.
If so, then let the dialog proceed, based on science, not on sin, atonement, repentance, and “don’t confuse me with facts.”
I consider myself an environmentalist. I also believe in a religion that preaches, by the way, tolerance of different viewpoints, since we humans are all imperfect.
Post a Comment