"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message ...
riverman wrote:

Pax Christi (a religious NGO) undertook a survey asking voters what was
the most urgent moral crisis facing the country. Results:

33% greed and materialism
31% poverty and economic justice
16% abortion
12% gay marriage

Most media outlets focused on the 3rd and 4th place items, which were
outnumbered 65% by other issues. I read about it in a Noam Chomsky essay:
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Jan2005/chomsky0105.html


Very interesting article, although I can already see it being dismissed as
'sour grapes by the educated elite'.
Too bad.
--riverman

IAll this seems to attributed to two quotes

"My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to
occupy the land until Jesus returns." -- James Watt, The Washington
Post, May 24, 1981

The other is that "we don't need to protect the environment, the second
coming is near."

The first is out of a Washington Post interview, while it can be
constrewed to be pro developemental, it is hardly a statement that
endorses environmental destruction. BTW, the is no doubt that Watts was
pro developement.

I can't find the origin or context of the second statement, so I don't
know how serious or even how accurate that statement needs to be taken.
If you can find the full text, let me know.

I find nothing that ties Gale Norton to the same religious beliefs
other than working for James G Watts.

My only repy to this is that everywhere that Anti Gay Marriage
legislation was on the ballot, it recieved overwhelming support. It
even passed in the rather liberal North West.

I might have to question their polling method, although it could be
somewhat accurate.
The first two are broad areas that could cover a bunch of different
things and meanings while the last two are very specific.

It's probable that most of the country is like me on this issue, I
really don't give much of a damn about it one way or the other. But, if
you put it on a ballot and asked me to choose, Marriage is a social
institution and society should be able to dictate what it considers
acceptable. But this isn't a defining issue for me at all.

Might point out that Paul was not one of the original Disciples and did
not witness any of the miracles. Claimed to have a direct conversion
from God on the road to Damascus, if I remember my Bible.

Larry C wrote:
Might point out that Paul was not one of the original Disciples and
did
not witness any of the miracles. Claimed to have a direct conversion
from God on the road to Damascus, if I remember my Bible.

Many others are reported to have seen Him as well. TnT

Bill Tuthill wrote:


Environmentalism is an updated form of native american religion, I
suspect.
It's amazing how much influence native americans have had over our
culture,
especially considering how we mercilessly wiped them out. For
example,
the Iroquois Confederacy served as a model for US government.

I'm not sure that I buy the arguement that the Native Americans were
all that environmentally conscious. For example, the Iroquois
Confederation was formed to expand the tribes territory for the Fur
Trade and as a response to the encroachment of the Northern Tribes
supported by the French. They needed more territory because they had
decimated the furbearing populations in their original tribal areas.
Hardly a conservation ethic.

If one considers earlier Native cultures, there seem to have been
several that suffered from environmental collapses, maybe due to
climate change. The Adena in the East and the Cliff Dwellers in the
west for an example.

"riverman" wrote in message
...



snippage...



First, CocaCola presents a program quite to the liking of about
9/10th of the world, but that sure doesn't make it GOOD for
them. So the fact that more people bought Bush's campaign does
not really mean much beyond, well, that more people voted for
him. To us nonBush supporters, you sound like someone trying
their damndest to explain why Coke is good for you.
==================
Then present an argument on WHY Pepsi/Mt. Dew/Sprite is better,
instead of just saying Coke is bad. There is the problem, in a
nutshell. People that believe Coke is better don't need someone
to convince them of that. If you want them to consider the other
drinks, if you want to convince them that other drinks are
better, YOU have to present a reason why they should, not just
claim Coke is bad. I've yet to hear that argument.


snips...

Larry C wrote:
Bill Tuthill wrote:


Environmentalism is an updated form of native american religion, I
suspect.
It's amazing how much influence native americans have had over our
culture,
especially considering how we mercilessly wiped them out. For
example,
the Iroquois Confederacy served as a model for US government.

I'm not sure that I buy the arguement that the Native Americans were
all that environmentally conscious. For example, the Iroquois
Confederation was formed to expand the tribes territory for the Fur
Trade and as a response to the encroachment of the Northern Tribes
supported by the French. They needed more territory because they had
decimated the furbearing populations in their original tribal areas.
Hardly a conservation ethic.

If one considers earlier Native cultures, there seem to have been
several that suffered from environmental collapses, maybe due to
climate change. The Adena in the East and the Cliff Dwellers in the
west for an example.

Read an Archeology article recently regarding the Yucatan. Seems that
the Mayan denuded large areas of the Yucatan forest, because of their
high demand for firewood, to reduce limestone for plaster for the
temples. They would live and build in an area until the forest could no
longer support the temple building and the agriculture, and then move
on.

Having spent time there in the early '70, the process continues. The
indigenous people practice slash and burn, live in an area for 5 to 10
years and then have to move on because they are having to carry their
firewood so far, 30-50 miles per day, in order to find good fire wood,
and the ag-land is played out.

The Spanish tried to stabilize the situation, several hundred years
ago, by requiring the people to have a home town of origin. So now the
people typically maintain two homes, one it town, where they go to be
counted and to pay taxes, and one in the jungle where they actually
live.

The Mexican Dept of Interior, is trying to save the forest, but you can
go for miles without seeing a large tree. High fines placed for cutting
one down, and are trying to reforest large area, but will take years of
effort.

All this has absolutely nothing to do with the large oil companies,
mining, or other enviro-hazard based big biz, just folks trying to have
a fire to cook their beans and stay warm.

Here on the High Plains, prior to conquistador and white settlers
bringing horses, the indians hunted buffaloe by driving a herd over a
cliff. They would kill many more than they could process, and without
refrigeration, there was lots of waste of game meat. Similarly they
hunted deer and elk. The game herds are larger now than ever with game
management, except for the buffaloe herds, which were a health issue
for domestic animals.

I am sure the Savannah of Africa is amazing to see with all its game
animals, but it will not support the developement required for advanced
civilization. Even current developement of agricultural areas is
conflicting with large animals such as rino and elephant, etc. Should
we just tell the locals that they really don't need to eat! Again
nothing to do with the big boys like Haliburton and the evil empire.

I suspect that some of these companies would love to develope ANWR, and
maybe Watts would have allowed it, and now Bush and Norton contemplates
it. I also suspect that if they go up there, though they will probably
not be able to leave no trace, they will be required to leave as small
a footprint as possible. The cost of a highly advanced industrial
civilization.

If there is an alternative, I would love to hear it, and see it in
"black and white," not just platitudes and pie in the sky, and talk
about the noble savage. It is easy to whine, show me a plan that works,
and I would be more than glad to promote it to all my fundementalist
friends in high places.

This all reminds me of a story I heard awhile back.

A farmer is out in his field working, and notices some fellow leaning
over his fence taking pictures. He approches the man and asks if he can
help him. The man politely and with awe in his voice said, "What a
beautiful field, that God had made!". The farmer without missing a
beat, said "Well, I don't know about God, you should have seen it when
He had it all to Himself."

Yes we have stewardship, and sometimes we have to get out some big
stones. TnT

"Larry C" wrote in message
ps.com...
My only repy to this is that everywhere that Anti Gay Marriage
legislation was on the ballot, it recieved overwhelming support. It
even passed in the rather liberal North West.

I might have to question their polling method, although it could be
somewhat accurate.
The first two are broad areas that could cover a bunch of different
things and meanings while the last two are very specific.

It's probable that most of the country is like me on this issue, I
really don't give much of a damn about it one way or the other. But, if
you put it on a ballot and asked me to choose, Marriage is a social
institution and society should be able to dictate what it considers
acceptable. But this isn't a defining issue for me at all.


I bet you are correct, in the most part. about the country being like you on
the Gay Marriage issue. I think most folks support gay rights in an
intellectual sense, but if forced to choose between legislating it or not,
will choose the status quo. Things like this might always fail when put on a
ballot anywhere but places like SF, but if just left alone, will not be
defining issues.

Its been fun and rational discussing this with you, but I think folks like
you and I will never fully understand the outcome of the election or the
stance of the US public. Hell, I didn't even know a single person who voted
for Reagan, yet his second election is touted as the biggest landslide in US
history. We are all rather isolated in our social networks, and the US is a
pretty large, diverse place. Understanding the outcome of the election
certainly won't be as simple as we want it to be ("it was a morals issue" or
"the Right was fooled"), and I think the analysis has gone on into the realm
of the pundits and intelligensia. And even they are finding a lot of
disagreement.

I do think, however, that Bush's presidency, with all its characteristics
and idiosyncracies, will go down in History as one of the most unusual in
American history. And that there will be debate forever on his merits and
shortcomings.

Truce.

--riverman

rick wrote:
"riverman" wrote in message
...



snippage...



First, CocaCola presents a program quite to the liking of about
9/10th of the world, but that sure doesn't make it GOOD for
them. So the fact that more people bought Bush's campaign does
not really mean much beyond, well, that more people voted for
him. To us nonBush supporters, you sound like someone trying
their damndest to explain why Coke is good for you.
==================
Then present an argument on WHY Pepsi/Mt. Dew/Sprite is better,
instead of just saying Coke is bad. There is the problem, in a
nutshell. People that believe Coke is better don't need someone
to convince them of that. If you want them to consider the other
drinks, if you want to convince them that other drinks are
better, YOU have to present a reason why they should, not just
claim Coke is bad. I've yet to hear that argument.


snips...

Now this is precisely the point. Instead of blaming the
"Fundamentalist" or "Evangelical" Christians, the influence of which
has been vastly overrated (voter demographics just done lie),
the Democrats need to look at why they are not getting their message
across. Since I follow politics as a spectator sport, my take is that
they have become sidetracked by social issues that either aren't
relavent or distasteful to the voting population. While I disliked Bill
Clinton, politically I had to admire the way that he skillfully coopted
any popular conservative program as his own, which is why he was
elelcted twice during a time when the rest of the Democratic Party was
sucking, while managing to avoid most of these issues (except Gun
Control). The first time you have a Democratic candidate the can
distance himself from Gay Marriage, Abortion, and Gun Control, you are
probably going to have another Democrat in the White House. I really
don't see this happening since the DNC is wedded to certain special
interest groups that won't allow these changes.