Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists
 

I can't help but this odd melding between hate christianity and
corporate greed is some kind of natural order of things. When species
overpopulate they self destruct.

A world-wide killdown of perhaps 50% of all humans would certainly be a
positive step from an evolutionary standpoint.

I'm just glad that I don't have kids.

Let me pee on your parade.

Guys, I've grown up in the Bible Belt and have probably heard just
about every protestant religion at some point or another, and I have
never heard anyone in any of these religions spew such unadulterated
crap. In fact, quite the opposite, many protestant religions are quite
active in the environmental movement. I'm not talking about some wacko
the has a congregation of 6, but any viable and active large
congregation. Is this part of the creed of the Southern Baptist, the
largest single protestant group in the the US? I can tell you that it
isn't.

I've come to the conclusion that the current fad of the left of blaming
all the ills of the country on the Christian Right as an act of mental
masturbation of a group that lost contact with the mainstream in 1968
and never has caught up. Even in this election, the percentage of
"Christian" voters was nearly the same as in past elections. But it's
easier to blame the "Christians" than to admit that the party supported
unpopular social views while failing to articulate a clearly defined
alternative to the present administration.

I personally feel that mindless superstition and senseless rituals are
all that seperate us from the animals, but blaming the "Christians" for
the failure of the Democratic party and the percieved lack of
environmental concern of the present administration is laughable.

"Larry C" wrote in message
oups.com...
Let me pee on your parade.

Guys, I've grown up in the Bible Belt and have probably heard just
about every protestant religion at some point or another, and I have
never heard anyone in any of these religions spew such unadulterated
crap. In fact, quite the opposite, many protestant religions are quite
active in the environmental movement. I'm not talking about some wacko
the has a congregation of 6, but any viable and active large
congregation. Is this part of the creed of the Southern Baptist, the
largest single protestant group in the the US? I can tell you that it
isn't.

I've come to the conclusion that the current fad of the left of blaming
all the ills of the country on the Christian Right as an act of mental
masturbation of a group that lost contact with the mainstream in 1968
and never has caught up. Even in this election, the percentage of
"Christian" voters was nearly the same as in past elections. But it's
easier to blame the "Christians" than to admit that the party supported
unpopular social views while failing to articulate a clearly defined
alternative to the present administration.

I personally feel that mindless superstition and senseless rituals are
all that seperate us from the animals, but blaming the "Christians" for
the failure of the Democratic party and the percieved lack of
environmental concern of the present administration is laughable.


Larry, its your assertation that YOU know mindset of the 'mainstream' that
is precisely the core of what is so distasteful ABOUT the Christian right.
The 'moral majority' was neither moral nor in majority back in the 1970s,
nor is it today. And the entire 'we have Bush because of a failure of the
democratic party' line is precisely what your political leaders are telling
you to believe while they manipulate the media and the laws to their own
benefit, not yours. You'd be much more accurate to say "we have Bush because
a lot of gullible people voted without looking too deeply into the
situation, exactly as they were told to do."

Maybe mindless superstition and senseless rituals are all that separate YOU
from the animals, but I like to think that we have the ability to reason and
make judgements. Based on that last election, though, I'm not so sure.

--riverman

Larry C wrote:

....stuff deleted
I've come to the conclusion that the current fad of the left of blaming
all the ills of the country on the Christian Right as an act of mental
masturbation of a group that lost contact with the mainstream in 1968
and never has caught up. Even in this election, the percentage of
"Christian" voters was nearly the same as in past elections. But it's
easier to blame the "Christians" than to admit that the party supported
unpopular social views while failing to articulate a clearly defined
alternative to the present administration.

I personally feel that mindless superstition and senseless rituals are
all that seperate us from the animals, but blaming the "Christians" for
the failure of the Democratic party and the percieved lack of
environmental concern of the present administration is laughable.


Larry,

Sadly, this agenda is real. It was first expounded by James Watt about
20 years ago, and there are individuals in Bush's cabinet who also hold
this view. Nobody said that this was a mainstream movement, nor that it
was the agenda of all protestent religions, just that it exists. Sadly,
these cultists are in positions of power in our government. Moyer is not
the only individual who has stated this, he is just one of many
competent journalists who have.

Rick

"riverman" wrote in message
...

"Larry C" wrote in message
oups.com...
Let me pee on your parade.

snip



Larry, its your assertation that YOU know mindset of the 'mainstream' that
is precisely the core of what is so distasteful ABOUT the Christian right.
The 'moral majority' was neither moral nor in majority back in the 1970s,
nor is it today. And the entire 'we have Bush because of a failure of the
democratic party' line is precisely what your political leaders are
telling you to believe while they manipulate the media and the laws to
their own benefit, not yours. You'd be much more accurate to say "we have
Bush because a lot of gullible people voted without looking too deeply
into the situation, exactly as they were told to do."

Maybe mindless superstition and senseless rituals are all that separate
YOU from the animals, but I like to think that we have the ability to
reason and make judgements. Based on that last election, though, I'm not
so sure.

--riverman


And here you have the arrogance of the democratic party. If you don't agree
with me, you must be "gullible", you must be dumb and you must must be
wrong.

Idiot.

If you were willing to get your head out of... the sand, you'd see that
there are extremists on both the left and the right. There are intelligent
well-meaning people on both sides. Unless you got your opinions from a
mountain top, they aren't perfect and subject to be dead wrong.

It is perfectly acceptable for others to look at the facts and come to
conclusions that differ with your point of view. No matter how precious it
is to you and no matter how sure you are that your opinion must be the Only
One, there must be room for disagreement in any great country.

Lord Monkey Fist wrote:
"riverman" wrote in message
...

"Larry C" wrote in message
oups.com...
Let me pee on your parade.

snip



Larry, its your assertation that YOU know mindset of the
'mainstream' that
is precisely the core of what is so distasteful ABOUT the Christian
right.
The 'moral majority' was neither moral nor in majority back in the
1970s,
nor is it today. And the entire 'we have Bush because of a failure
of the
democratic party' line is precisely what your political leaders are

telling you to believe while they manipulate the media and the laws
to
their own benefit, not yours. You'd be much more accurate to say
"we have
Bush because a lot of gullible people voted without looking too
deeply
into the situation, exactly as they were told to do."

Maybe mindless superstition and senseless rituals are all that
separate
YOU from the animals, but I like to think that we have the ability
to
reason and make judgements. Based on that last election, though,
I'm not
so sure.

--riverman


And here you have the arrogance of the democratic party. If you don't
agree
with me, you must be "gullible", you must be dumb and you must must
be
wrong.

Idiot.

If you were willing to get your head out of... the sand, you'd see
that
there are extremists on both the left and the right. There are
intelligent
well-meaning people on both sides. Unless you got your opinions from
a
mountain top, they aren't perfect and subject to be dead wrong.

It is perfectly acceptable for others to look at the facts and come
to
conclusions that differ with your point of view. No matter how
precious it
is to you and no matter how sure you are that your opinion must be
the Only
One, there must be room for disagreement in any great country.

And as long as they keep making the same conclusion about our
gullibility, they will keep seeing the same results. Out of touch, and
out of office! TnT

On 6-Feb-2005, "Larry C" wrote:

I've come to the conclusion that the current fad of the left of blaming
all the ills of the country on the Christian Right as an act of mental
masturbation of a group that lost contact with the mainstream in 1968
and never has caught up.

And yet the anti-liberal stance is just the right blaming the left for
all the ills of the country.

Mike

On 6 Feb 2005 07:29:22 -0800, "Larry C" vaguely
proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Well that says it all about your opinions.

I personally feel that mindless superstition and senseless rituals are
all that seperate us from the animals,

On 6 Feb 2005 07:29:22 -0800, "Larry C" vaguely
proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Let me pee on your parade.

Now _that's_ going to get you listened to!

Guys, I've grown up in the Bible Belt and have probably heard just
about every protestant religion at some point or another, and I have
never heard anyone in any of these religions spew such unadulterated
crap. In fact, quite the opposite, many protestant religions are quite
active in the environmental movement.

Well I have. I have heard from an otherwise quite sensible Catholic
that world population should not be controlled, because when the
crunch comes, it's simply God's will. ALl the suffereing (which we
already see) is OK. Watt's ideas are only just a bit further around
that bend.

I've come to the conclusion that the current fad of the left of blaming
all the ills of the country on the Christian Right as an act of mental
masturbation of a group that lost contact with the mainstream in 1968
and never has caught up. Even in this election, the percentage of
"Christian" voters was nearly the same as in past elections. But it's
easier to blame the "Christians" than to admit that the party supported
unpopular social views while failing to articulate a clearly defined
alternative to the present administration.


but blaming the "Christians" for
the failure of the Democratic party and the percieved lack of
environmental concern of the present administration is laughable.

Now here I agree with you. But I don't think the "Christians" are the
only ones being blamed. There are many at fault. Rampant greed is the
fault. But if a famous right Christian paints a target on the arse of
all of his ilk, they should blame _him_, not the people who talk
disparagingly about him.

Larry C wrote:

Let me pee on your parade...


Thank you for not peeing in the river.



The point is to raise environmental consciousness. What little I know
of the Bible isn't supportive of an environmental ethic.

There's the Garden of Eden, from where man was banished. There's
dominion over the earth and its creatures, ranking the environment
subordinate to man. There's the idea that Jesus can multiply fish and
bread from thin air to feed the masses. Jesus was a carpenter and hung
on a wooden cross, placing forest products in a strict utilitarian
context. There's raising the dead and reincarnation, which implies a
spiritual violation and divorce of spirit from the natural order of
things. There's the whole famine, plague, flood thing of environment
as antagonist.

Then there's the idea of hell being a volcanic, subterranean realm in
earthly bowels made of fire and brimstone. I don't know if that last
idea is in the bible, but it is certainly popular among Christians.
The point is the earth is not a happy place for Christians, and their
ultimate goal is to reach somewhere better. For Christians, the earth
is a stepping stone, a place of trials and tribulations, and in whose
bosom lay the fire and brimstone of eternal damnation. The Bible, as
used and interpreted by the majority of Christian fundamentalists, is
not a model of environmental stewardship.





--
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me

- From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon

There's the Garden of Eden, from where man was banished. There's
dominion over the earth and its creatures, ranking the environment
subordinate to man. There's the idea that Jesus can multiply fish and
bread from thin air to feed the masses. Jesus was a carpenter and hung
on a wooden cross, placing forest products in a strict utilitarian
context. There's raising the dead and reincarnation, which implies a
spiritual violation and divorce of spirit from the natural order of
things. There's the whole famine, plague, flood thing of environment
as antagonist.

Then there's the idea of hell being a volcanic, subterranean realm in
earthly bowels made of fire and brimstone. I don't know if that last
idea is in the bible, but it is certainly popular among Christians.
The point is the earth is not a happy place for Christians, and their
ultimate goal is to reach somewhere better. For Christians, the earth
is a stepping stone, a place of trials and tribulations, and in whose
bosom lay the fire and brimstone of eternal damnation. The Bible, as
used and interpreted by the majority of Christian fundamentalists, is
not a model of environmental stewardship.



OK, I'm gonna debate ya on this a little, although I certainly don't share
Larry's perspective. I think you're stretching with your "Bible as
Anti-Environment" thesis. For starters, while the Bible does assign man the
role of master over the creatures and lands of the Earth, it explicitly
charges him to PROTECT creation, not destroy it. And harvesting it for
man's use does not equate to destruction; I don't think anybody would say
that fishing or hunting equates to environmental destruction. Of course,
like any activities, you have the good along with the bad- for every kid
with a fishing pole on a quiet northern lake, there's a trawler with a drag
net wreaking havoc on marine environments. I'm not sure how you can say
that Jesus as a carpenter is a sign that the Bible is anti-environment; one
of my best paddling buddies is a finishing carpenter. For that matter,
aren't his wooden canoes just as "utilitarian" as a wooden cross? Famine,
plague, and antagonists? Remember the tsunami thing that several of our
friends in Asia recently dealt with? I suspect they would agree that nature
is indeed an antagonist at times! Treating nature as antagonist is one
thing; destroying it to further your own interests entirely something
different.

Is earth a place of trials and tribulations? Sure. If you're leading a
life *without* trials and/or tribulations, please share your experiences- I
bet you're the only one in that position :-) Why is Earth as a place of
trial a bad thing? I endure the "trial" of whitewater whenever I can, and
believe me, there are many rapids that I view as being antagonistic, almost
malevolent! But trials and adversity are not bad; they give you the chance
to stand tall. I believe that is the true function of creation as described
in the Bible- a place to rise above trials and tribulation, a place to meet
those challenges and succeed! If others view the trials and tribulations of
life on earth as an enemy rather than a spiritual refining process, that
would be their failing, IMO.

I certainly agree that there is some movement in the Christian right to
treat the enviroment like a big cookie jar, but that really isn't the fault
of the Bible or it's writers. I would opine that that is more indicative of
Christian fundamentalists failure to understand God's desire that man act as
a steward of the environment. Personally, I believe that Christian
fundamentalists fail to understand God's instructions in more areas than
just environmental stewardship, but that's a whole different story.

Frank Bell wrote:

There's the Garden of Eden, from where man was banished. There's
dominion over the earth and its creatures, ranking the environment
subordinate to man. There's the idea that Jesus can multiply fish
and
bread from thin air to feed the masses. Jesus was a carpenter and
hung
on a wooden cross, placing forest products in a strict utilitarian
context. There's raising the dead and reincarnation, which implies
a
spiritual violation and divorce of spirit from the natural order of
things. There's the whole famine, plague, flood thing of
environment
as antagonist.

Then there's the idea of hell being a volcanic, subterranean realm
in
earthly bowels made of fire and brimstone. I don't know if that
last
idea is in the bible, but it is certainly popular among Christians.
The point is the earth is not a happy place for Christians, and
their
ultimate goal is to reach somewhere better. For Christians, the
earth
is a stepping stone, a place of trials and tribulations, and in
whose
bosom lay the fire and brimstone of eternal damnation. The Bible,
as
used and interpreted by the majority of Christian fundamentalists,
is
not a model of environmental stewardship.



OK, I'm gonna debate ya on this a little, although I certainly don't
share
Larry's perspective. I think you're stretching with your "Bible as
Anti-Environment" thesis. For starters, while the Bible does assign
man the
role of master over the creatures and lands of the Earth, it
explicitly
charges him to PROTECT creation, not destroy it. And harvesting it
for
man's use does not equate to destruction; I don't think anybody would
say
that fishing or hunting equates to environmental destruction. Of
course,
like any activities, you have the good along with the bad- for every
kid
with a fishing pole on a quiet northern lake, there's a trawler with
a drag
net wreaking havoc on marine environments. I'm not sure how you can
say
that Jesus as a carpenter is a sign that the Bible is
anti-environment; one
of my best paddling buddies is a finishing carpenter. For that
matter,
aren't his wooden canoes just as "utilitarian" as a wooden cross?
Famine,
plague, and antagonists? Remember the tsunami thing that several of
our
friends in Asia recently dealt with? I suspect they would agree that
nature
is indeed an antagonist at times! Treating nature as antagonist is
one
thing; destroying it to further your own interests entirely something
different.

Is earth a place of trials and tribulations? Sure. If you're
leading a
life *without* trials and/or tribulations, please share your
experiences- I
bet you're the only one in that position :-) Why is Earth as a place
of
trial a bad thing? I endure the "trial" of whitewater whenever I
can, and
believe me, there are many rapids that I view as being antagonistic,
almost
malevolent! But trials and adversity are not bad; they give you the
chance
to stand tall. I believe that is the true function of creation as
described
in the Bible- a place to rise above trials and tribulation, a place
to meet
those challenges and succeed! If others view the trials and
tribulations of
life on earth as an enemy rather than a spiritual refining process,
that
would be their failing, IMO.

I certainly agree that there is some movement in the Christian right
to
treat the enviroment like a big cookie jar, but that really isn't the
fault
of the Bible or it's writers. I would opine that that is more
indicative of
Christian fundamentalists failure to understand God's desire that man
act as
a steward of the environment. Personally, I believe that Christian
fundamentalists fail to understand God's instructions in more areas
than
just environmental stewardship, but that's a whole different story.

Frank, if it doesn't shake you up to badly, I am with you on this one!
Stewardship is the key, and in fact I believe there will be a day of
reckoning for all those who claim to be Christians and were poor
stewards. The Scriptures say that we who claim a greater understanding,
will be held to a greater responsibility. Now that is not an excuse for
staying ignorant, but those who may be proposing to hurry the Lord's
return by trashing the environment, may not be so happy when He starts
asking them to give account.

Now I would also have to say that I have never heard any of the
Christians I know propose trashing the environment, though I can also
understand that there could be some that would. There are definitely
some wackos out here who make some pretty bizarre claims. However the
solution is not to lump all Christian fundementalist into one big pile.
There are many various flavors, though the lions aren't to
discriminating. TnT

Frank, if it doesn't shake you up to badly, I am with you on this one!

Ha ha ha! Nope, I may get super ****ed off at the American right, but when
hasn't political debate been a nasty business? What the hell, eh? This
*is* usenet, after all :-)

Stewardship is the key, and in fact I believe there will be a day of
reckoning for all those who claim to be Christians and were poor
stewards. The Scriptures say that we who claim a greater understanding,
will be held to a greater responsibility. Now that is not an excuse for
staying ignorant, but those who may be proposing to hurry the Lord's
return by trashing the environment, may not be so happy when He starts
asking them to give account.

I completely agree with you. I've always thought that certain individuals
on this earth who claim to be about the Lord's business may suddenly
discover that they're in fact opposing it; Christian, Moslem, Jewish, or
otherwise. And making that discovery when they're standing before their
maker won't be pleasant.

Now I would also have to say that I have never heard any of the
Christians I know propose trashing the environment, though I can also
understand that there could be some that would. There are definitely
some wackos out here who make some pretty bizarre claims. However the
solution is not to lump all Christian fundementalist into one big pile.
There are many various flavors, though the lions aren't to
discriminating. TnT


Agree again. I know a few fundamentalist-types who are very deeply involved
in environmental protection. With the current conservative politics of
America, Christians in the United States feel (and are) politically
empowered. Unfortunately, this gives the lunatic fringe types a louder
voice, along with those who have more moderate opinions.

Frank Bell wrote:

There's the Garden of Eden, from where man was banished. There's
dominion over the earth and its creatures, ranking the environment
subordinate to man. There's the idea that Jesus can multiply fish and
bread from thin air to feed the masses. Jesus was a carpenter and hung
on a wooden cross, placing forest products in a strict utilitarian
context. There's raising the dead and reincarnation, which implies a
spiritual violation and divorce of spirit from the natural order of
things. There's the whole famine, plague, flood thing of environment
as antagonist.

Then there's the idea of hell being a volcanic, subterranean realm in
earthly bowels made of fire and brimstone. I don't know if that last
idea is in the bible, but it is certainly popular among Christians.
The point is the earth is not a happy place for Christians, and their
ultimate goal is to reach somewhere better. For Christians, the earth
is a stepping stone, a place of trials and tribulations, and in whose
bosom lay the fire and brimstone of eternal damnation. The Bible, as
used and interpreted by the majority of Christian fundamentalists, is
not a model of environmental stewardship.




OK, I'm gonna debate ya on this a little, although I certainly don't share
Larry's perspective. I think you're stretching with your "Bible as
Anti-Environment" thesis. For starters, while the Bible does assign man the
role of master over the creatures and lands of the Earth, it explicitly
charges him to PROTECT creation, not destroy it. And harvesting it for
man's use does not equate to destruction; I don't think anybody would say
that fishing or hunting equates to environmental destruction. Of course,
like any activities, you have the good along with the bad- for every kid
with a fishing pole on a quiet northern lake, there's a trawler with a drag
net wreaking havoc on marine environments. I'm not sure how you can say
that Jesus as a carpenter is a sign that the Bible is anti-environment; one
of my best paddling buddies is a finishing carpenter. For that matter,
aren't his wooden canoes just as "utilitarian" as a wooden cross? Famine,
plague, and antagonists? Remember the tsunami thing that several of our
friends in Asia recently dealt with? I suspect they would agree that nature
is indeed an antagonist at times! Treating nature as antagonist is one
thing; destroying it to further your own interests entirely something
different.

Is earth a place of trials and tribulations? Sure. If you're leading a
life *without* trials and/or tribulations, please share your experiences- I
bet you're the only one in that position :-) Why is Earth as a place of
trial a bad thing? I endure the "trial" of whitewater whenever I can, and
believe me, there are many rapids that I view as being antagonistic, almost
malevolent! But trials and adversity are not bad; they give you the chance
to stand tall. I believe that is the true function of creation as described
in the Bible- a place to rise above trials and tribulation, a place to meet
those challenges and succeed! If others view the trials and tribulations of
life on earth as an enemy rather than a spiritual refining process, that
would be their failing, IMO.

I certainly agree that there is some movement in the Christian right to
treat the enviroment like a big cookie jar, but that really isn't the fault
of the Bible or it's writers. I would opine that that is more indicative of
Christian fundamentalists failure to understand God's desire that man act as
a steward of the environment. Personally, I believe that Christian
fundamentalists fail to understand God's instructions in more areas than
just environmental stewardship, but that's a whole different story.


The examples I used illustrate the idea of man's subjugation of
nature. Many Christians believe in a spiritual hierarchy; man is above
the animals (nature) and God and the angels are above man. Indeed,
Satan, who was God's favorite angel, upon thinking himself the equal
of God was cast from heaven into hell (earth?). Or, so the story goes.

The contention isn't that the Bible is anti-environment. Rather, the
Christian belief of earth/nature as a couple notches below some lofty,
heavenly ideal is not pro-environment. It's as if earth/nature is a
kind of waiting room, or queue or elevator before entering into the
kingdom of heaven.

Jesus multiplied fish and loaves. This doesn't happen in the real
world without serious consequences. I recently posted a story about
the environmental effects of fish farming. You can see satellite
photos of rain forest deforestation by slash and burn to clear cattle
pastures. Old growth forest continue to decline, other forested lands
have been replaced with commercial monoculture forests. The natural
environment can indeed be antagonistic, but the Bible uses these as
examples of God's wrath and punishment for man's digressions.

There was a brief, almost tenderly naive period of popular
environmentalism during the activist '60s. Joni Mitchell, in her
dedication to the times, says in "Woodstock," "We've got to get
ourselves back to the Garden." The sentiment that we can get back to
the Garden has been misplaced and forgotten.

Some of the writings of Naturalists, Thoreau, Abbey, Craig Childs,
etc. are among the most beautiful, evocative and inspiring writings I
have ever read. Nature is a place of deep spirit. Our boats may be
wood or petroleum based, but they express a sense of conservation. A
river can evoke a timelessness. Nature comes across, through and
reflected back upon us. We see through fresh eyes and breath moist
air, like being born again.





--
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me

- From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon

Frederick Burroughs wrote:
Frank Bell wrote:

There's the Garden of Eden, from where man was banished. There's
dominion over the earth and its creatures, ranking the environment
subordinate to man. There's the idea that Jesus can multiply fish
and
bread from thin air to feed the masses. Jesus was a carpenter and
hung
on a wooden cross, placing forest products in a strict utilitarian
context. There's raising the dead and reincarnation, which implies
a
spiritual violation and divorce of spirit from the natural order of
things. There's the whole famine, plague, flood thing of
environment
as antagonist.

Then there's the idea of hell being a volcanic, subterranean realm
in
earthly bowels made of fire and brimstone. I don't know if that
last
idea is in the bible, but it is certainly popular among Christians.
The point is the earth is not a happy place for Christians, and
their
ultimate goal is to reach somewhere better. For Christians, the
earth
is a stepping stone, a place of trials and tribulations, and in
whose
bosom lay the fire and brimstone of eternal damnation. The Bible,
as
used and interpreted by the majority of Christian fundamentalists,
is
not a model of environmental stewardship.




OK, I'm gonna debate ya on this a little, although I certainly
don't share
Larry's perspective. I think you're stretching with your "Bible as
Anti-Environment" thesis. For starters, while the Bible does
assign man the
role of master over the creatures and lands of the Earth, it
explicitly
charges him to PROTECT creation, not destroy it. And harvesting it
for
man's use does not equate to destruction; I don't think anybody
would say
that fishing or hunting equates to environmental destruction. Of
course,
like any activities, you have the good along with the bad- for
every kid
with a fishing pole on a quiet northern lake, there's a trawler
with a drag
net wreaking havoc on marine environments. I'm not sure how you
can say
that Jesus as a carpenter is a sign that the Bible is
anti-environment; one
of my best paddling buddies is a finishing carpenter. For that
matter,
aren't his wooden canoes just as "utilitarian" as a wooden cross?
Famine,
plague, and antagonists? Remember the tsunami thing that several
of our
friends in Asia recently dealt with? I suspect they would agree
that nature
is indeed an antagonist at times! Treating nature as antagonist is
one
thing; destroying it to further your own interests entirely
something
different.

Is earth a place of trials and tribulations? Sure. If you're
leading a
life *without* trials and/or tribulations, please share your
experiences- I
bet you're the only one in that position :-) Why is Earth as a
place of
trial a bad thing? I endure the "trial" of whitewater whenever I
can, and
believe me, there are many rapids that I view as being
antagonistic, almost
malevolent! But trials and adversity are not bad; they give you
the chance
to stand tall. I believe that is the true function of creation as
described
in the Bible- a place to rise above trials and tribulation, a place
to meet
those challenges and succeed! If others view the trials and
tribulations of
life on earth as an enemy rather than a spiritual refining process,
that
would be their failing, IMO.

I certainly agree that there is some movement in the Christian
right to
treat the enviroment like a big cookie jar, but that really isn't
the fault
of the Bible or it's writers. I would opine that that is more
indicative of
Christian fundamentalists failure to understand God's desire that
man act as
a steward of the environment. Personally, I believe that Christian
fundamentalists fail to understand God's instructions in more areas
than
just environmental stewardship, but that's a whole different story.


The examples I used illustrate the idea of man's subjugation of
nature. Many Christians believe in a spiritual hierarchy; man is
above
the animals (nature) and God and the angels are above man. Indeed,
Satan, who was God's favorite angel, upon thinking himself the equal
of God was cast from heaven into hell (earth?). Or, so the story
goes.

The contention isn't that the Bible is anti-environment. Rather, the
Christian belief of earth/nature as a couple notches below some
lofty,
heavenly ideal is not pro-environment. It's as if earth/nature is a
kind of waiting room, or queue or elevator before entering into the
kingdom of heaven.

Jesus multiplied fish and loaves. This doesn't happen in the real
world without serious consequences. I recently posted a story about
the environmental effects of fish farming. You can see satellite
photos of rain forest deforestation by slash and burn to clear cattle

pastures. Old growth forest continue to decline, other forested lands

have been replaced with commercial monoculture forests. The natural
environment can indeed be antagonistic, but the Bible uses these as
examples of God's wrath and punishment for man's digressions.

There was a brief, almost tenderly naive period of popular
environmentalism during the activist '60s. Joni Mitchell, in her
dedication to the times, says in "Woodstock," "We've got to get
ourselves back to the Garden." The sentiment that we can get back to
the Garden has been misplaced and forgotten.

Some of the writings of Naturalists, Thoreau, Abbey, Craig Childs,
etc. are among the most beautiful, evocative and inspiring writings I

have ever read. Nature is a place of deep spirit. Our boats may be
wood or petroleum based, but they express a sense of conservation. A
river can evoke a timelessness. Nature comes across, through and
reflected back upon us. We see through fresh eyes and breath moist
air, like being born again.





--
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me

- From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon

After the rancor of the day, your post is almost as refreshing as a
good time at the lake. I spend most of my boating time in a local
reservoir here in Denver, far from pristine, but tell that to the duck.


I was down there one evening, just paddling along, and here comes a
mother duck with her little ducks stretched out behind her. I just fell
in line and followed, and they did not seem the least bit bothered.
Maybe even seemed to adopt me. A very spiritual experience as the
daylight faded! TnT

"Frederick Burroughs" wrote in message
...
Frank Bell wrote:

There's the Garden of Eden, from where man was banished. There's
dominion over the earth and its creatures, ranking the environment
subordinate to man. There's the idea that Jesus can multiply fish and
bread from thin air to feed the masses. Jesus was a carpenter and hung
on a wooden cross, placing forest products in a strict utilitarian
context. There's raising the dead and reincarnation, which implies a
spiritual violation and divorce of spirit from the natural order of
things. There's the whole famine, plague, flood thing of environment
as antagonist.

Then there's the idea of hell being a volcanic, subterranean realm in
earthly bowels made of fire and brimstone. I don't know if that last
idea is in the bible, but it is certainly popular among Christians.
The point is the earth is not a happy place for Christians, and their
ultimate goal is to reach somewhere better. For Christians, the earth
is a stepping stone, a place of trials and tribulations, and in whose
bosom lay the fire and brimstone of eternal damnation. The Bible, as
used and interpreted by the majority of Christian fundamentalists, is
not a model of environmental stewardship.




OK, I'm gonna debate ya on this a little, although I certainly don't
share
Larry's perspective. I think you're stretching with your "Bible as
Anti-Environment" thesis. For starters, while the Bible does assign man
the
role of master over the creatures and lands of the Earth, it explicitly
charges him to PROTECT creation, not destroy it. And harvesting it for
man's use does not equate to destruction; I don't think anybody would say
that fishing or hunting equates to environmental destruction. Of course,
like any activities, you have the good along with the bad- for every kid
with a fishing pole on a quiet northern lake, there's a trawler with a
drag
net wreaking havoc on marine environments. I'm not sure how you can say
that Jesus as a carpenter is a sign that the Bible is anti-environment;
one
of my best paddling buddies is a finishing carpenter. For that matter,
aren't his wooden canoes just as "utilitarian" as a wooden cross?
Famine,
plague, and antagonists? Remember the tsunami thing that several of our
friends in Asia recently dealt with? I suspect they would agree that
nature
is indeed an antagonist at times! Treating nature as antagonist is one
thing; destroying it to further your own interests entirely something
different.

Is earth a place of trials and tribulations? Sure. If you're leading a
life *without* trials and/or tribulations, please share your experiences-
I
bet you're the only one in that position :-) Why is Earth as a place of
trial a bad thing? I endure the "trial" of whitewater whenever I can,
and
believe me, there are many rapids that I view as being antagonistic,
almost
malevolent! But trials and adversity are not bad; they give you the
chance
to stand tall. I believe that is the true function of creation as
described
in the Bible- a place to rise above trials and tribulation, a place to
meet
those challenges and succeed! If others view the trials and tribulations
of
life on earth as an enemy rather than a spiritual refining process, that
would be their failing, IMO.

I certainly agree that there is some movement in the Christian right to
treat the enviroment like a big cookie jar, but that really isn't the
fault
of the Bible or it's writers. I would opine that that is more indicative
of
Christian fundamentalists failure to understand God's desire that man act
as
a steward of the environment. Personally, I believe that Christian
fundamentalists fail to understand God's instructions in more areas than
just environmental stewardship, but that's a whole different story.


The examples I used illustrate the idea of man's subjugation of nature.
Many Christians believe in a spiritual hierarchy; man is above the animals
(nature) and God and the angels are above man. Indeed, Satan, who was
God's favorite angel, upon thinking himself the equal of God was cast from
heaven into hell (earth?). Or, so the story goes.

The contention isn't that the Bible is anti-environment. Rather, the
Christian belief of earth/nature as a couple notches below some lofty,
heavenly ideal is not pro-environment. It's as if earth/nature is a kind
of waiting room, or queue or elevator before entering into the kingdom of
heaven.

Jesus multiplied fish and loaves. This doesn't happen in the real world
without serious consequences. I recently posted a story about the
environmental effects of fish farming. You can see satellite photos of
rain forest deforestation by slash and burn to clear cattle pastures. Old
growth forest continue to decline, other forested lands have been replaced
with commercial monoculture forests. The natural environment can indeed be
antagonistic, but the Bible uses these as examples of God's wrath and
punishment for man's digressions.

There was a brief, almost tenderly naive period of popular
environmentalism during the activist '60s. Joni Mitchell, in her
dedication to the times, says in "Woodstock," "We've got to get ourselves
back to the Garden." The sentiment that we can get back to the Garden has
been misplaced and forgotten.

Some of the writings of Naturalists, Thoreau, Abbey, Craig Childs, etc.
are among the most beautiful, evocative and inspiring writings I have ever
read. Nature is a place of deep spirit. Our boats may be wood or petroleum
based, but they express a sense of conservation. A river can evoke a
timelessness. Nature comes across, through and reflected back upon us. We
see through fresh eyes and breath moist air, like being born again.




Theology comes in all flavors and sizes, but the idea that 'nature is there
to be used' is not uncommon. The concept of stewardship, to many, implies
having your hands on every aspect: I don't know a single forester who does
not believe that managed forests is not good stewardship. In fact, every
forester I know (coming from Maine, thats not a few) believes that hands-on
forestry is far superior to just letting the forests be. In their eyes, a
monocultural stand of identical Spruce trees, all in a row, without any
Budworm or disease is far superior to the same mountain side covered with
diverse species, with all the undergrowth and rot and natural disease. Its
not at all unlike the BLM under Floyd Dominy stating that undammed rivers
were just 'going to waste'.

It has taken 30 years and untold amounts of effort for the legitimacy of
free-flowing rivers to be re-established (it was quite well established
before industrialization rearranged and redefined 'natural resources'). I
fear we are facing an even larger battle for the idea of free-standing
forests to regain legitimacy. Not every Tom Dick and Harry can go out and
dam a river, but every landholder can go out with a chainsaw and 'improve'
their tree lot. And make some money while they are at it.

Currently, 'natural resources' are seen as a bank account, not an end it
itself. Whereas, in the past, national parks and national forests were seen
as preserves of 'the way it used to be', now they are seen as deposits of
trees, oil, minerals and water in a pretty wrapping, waiting for the right
time to be extracted. And current laws and legislation are being written
with precisely that view in mind. Get the resources out before we grand
national forest or national park status to the wrapper.

--riverman

The reason that I assert that the the the liberal left has lost touch
with America is that they have consisitantly lost ground in recent
elections to the Republic/moderate/right. That's just simple math, look
at the makeup of Congress, the Governorships of the states, and the
trend in memberships in the state legislatures. I live in a state that
is HEAVILY democratic, to the tune of 3 to 1, yet we now have a
Republican legislature and governor. Manipulated the Media? The media
I saw were all heavily in favor of Kerry.

But to blame this swing on "fundamentalist christians" is stereotyping
and scapegoating, frankly it sounds like a bunch of Nazis blaming all
their troubles on the Jews, or the Klan on the Blacks. Moyer
stated that there is a anti environmental element in the Protestant
Christian Religion, I say that it is absolute bull****. I don't see
armies of Christans wacking down trees to hurry the END. I've had to
sit through many a sermon in my day, from Catholic to Pentecostal, and
I have never heard anything like that from any of the pulpits. Do the
"Christians" vote a more conservative social value than espoused by the
Democratic Party? Yes, but mainly on issues like abortion and gay
marriage. But this is America and they do have the right to speak and
vote for what they believe whether you agree with them or not.

Frankly, I find the idea that since my guy didn't win, the people that
supported the winner are stupid and gullible as elitist at best. It's a
big country out there and people have a lot of different priorities on
why they vote, many may not be yours. But it's pretty evident from
recent elections that the Republicans have presented a program more to
their liking than the Democrats.

Let's start on the easy stuff. The only two educational groups that are
consistantly Democratic are the people with no High School education
and the Post Graduates. High School Dropouts and College Professors.
The College Educated have consistantly supported the Republicans by a
large margin.

You seem to miss the point. 76 percent of the country claims membership
in some Christian religion.
If one includes the Catholics, at least 50 percent of these groups are
socially conservative, probably a higher percentage. To run on a
platform that emphasis certain social causes that don't coincide with
the values of these groups, then gripe because they voted their social
values is pointless and rather stupid.

If one looks at the issues that Voters considered important this
election, the two that were foremost in most of the voters minds was
national security and the economy. The voters, and I agree with them,
thought that Bush had a better plan than his opponent, who in reality
didn't come forward with much concrete on either count. While you may
feel that Gay marriage and Abortion rights are important issues, it
seems that the voters feel differently.

Only 49% of Congress is Democratic?

Frederick Burroughs wrote:

Jesus multiplied fish and loaves [and healed lepers, walked on water...]

Rather, accounts of his life written one or two generations later claim
Jesus did those things. (Mark, Matthew, and Luke date from AD 70 to 90.)

It's interesting that the letters of Paul, which were the first portions
written of the New Testament, make no mention of miracles performed by
Jesus during his lifetime, only of his resurrection.

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.

riverman wrote:

My personal take on that is that this assessment is not entirely incorrect.
The only defense for how the right-wing voted that I have heard here, or
anywhere, is that the left wing has 'lost touch with America. (which, of
course, raises the question of our own nationality..) Not once have I heard
a right-wing voter tell me what the multitude of issues are that they have
lost touch WITH. They never support their vote with tangible analysis of
complex issues. Like the national debt. Like the environment...

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

"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.

Larry C wrote:


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.


Fear is credited by many for their vote for a 2nd-term Bush. There is
the fear of terrorism, with an appearance by the architect of modern
terrorism, Osama bin Laden, just days before the election. Bush's
response to this threat, questionable as to effectiveness, at least is
seen as strong and decisive by the voters.

Closer to home is the fear of moral decay; boobs at the Superbowl,
same-gender marriage, "activist" judges *legislating for* abortion and
gay marriage from the bench. Bush himself made moral issues a
centerpiece in the campaign, playing to and giving voice to the fears
of both religious conservatives and the public at large. It is Bush's
politics of fear that I find revolting and repulsive. Reminds me of a
criminal enterprise used to extort protection money from a fearful
public.





--
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me

- From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon

riverman wrote:

"Tinkerntom" wrote:

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.



OK. How about "CONSERVE"? And how about "its about time...."


Now there's a word you don't hear much anymore. I wonder how many
times it appears in Cheney's secret energy task force recommendations?
It has been made public that atomic energy (to use the old term) needs
to be revitalized, and will not result in production of greenhouse
gases. Which, the Bush administration has said with forked tongue, has
not been scientifically proven to be a cause of global warming.

Very recently, there have been public meetings for comment on a
proposal by the Virginia Department of Transportation to widen
Interstate 81 from four lanes to eight. A couple years ago these plans
were all but terminated in light of budget deficits. Negotiations are
now taking place between VDOT and STARS, a company owned by Cheney's
Halliburton.

I have a personal suspicion, unsupported by any collaborative
evidence, that the doubling of the width of I-81, with segregated
lanes for tractor-trailer traffic, is in preparation for
transportation of radioactive waste via interstate routes west to
Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Another suspicion is that Halliburton may be planning to use state and
federal highway funds to subsidize the laying of pipelines parallel
to highway construction.






--
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me

- From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon

Larry C wrote:

[gay marriage]
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.

Correct. Many of today's wedge issues are irrelevant to most people.
The Sierra Club makes an issue of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge,
but I don't expect to ever go there, and am much more concerned about
river access, parklands near home, and useless traffic lights that
exacerbate pollution while cars idle. I've never heard the Sierra Club
advocate removing or flow-timing traffic lights! And yet it could
probably reduce pollution more than scrapping every SUV in the country.

I'm not sure where you got this statistic, or its relevancy. If it IS true,
then it says that the more educated you are (dismissing the HS dropouts, who
we can agree are 'uneducated', yes?), the more likely you were to register

emocrat, not necessarily to vote Democrat. Do you have any stats about
the correlation between education level and how people voted

I'd think that the tilt of the college educated (BA and
MA) vote this time went to Kerry. Let me know if you have a source. I'll be
absolutely stunned if the majority of people with college diplomas vote

for
Bush

Try a web search on CNN exit poll 2004,
and it will give the the results.

Contrary to the Democratic myth, the College Educated consistantly vote
Republican, with the exception of Post Graduate degrees. I would find it more
likely that the Post Graduate group identify with the Democratic Party because
of it's heavy ties to the Education Community
(and Teachers Union). If you look at the education as just College Degree, the
vote is split at 49% each. If you add in "Some College", the advantage is again
Republican.

The single biggest indicator of voting preference is still income. If you make
over 50 grand, you tend to vote Republican.

Interesting statistics in this poll.

Larry
SYOTR
Larry C.

Larry C wrote:

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.

I'm not saying that Native Americans were environmentalists, just that
modern Environmentalism had its roots in indigenous religion. In the
Torah and classical Greco-Roman literature, you seldom or never encounter
wonder of the natural world. Virgil's Bucolic (Eclogues) are mostly
about farming. In European literature, nature worship reached its peak
with German Romanticism, and even there, nature is largely tamed by man.

Whereas in (many tribes') Native American religion, places are sacred
in and of themselves. There might be a rock (present-day Devil's Tower),
or a place on a river (Ishi Pishi Fall on the Klamath) considered sacred.

It could be this respect for natural features that inspired Thoreau,
Leopold Aldo, John Muir, Edward Abbey (etc.) to formulate the seminal
ideas of Environmentalism. Unless you have a different theory.

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.

I don't know about the Adena, but the Anasazi cliff dwellers were either
escaping severe drought, or pushed out by invading Navajo, or both.

Frederick Burroughs

Fear is credited by many for their vote for a 2nd-term Bush. There is
the fear of terrorism, with an appearance by the architect of modern
terrorism, Osama bin Laden, just days before the election. Bush's
response to this threat, questionable as to effectiveness, at least is

seen as strong and decisive by the voters.

Closer to home is the fear of moral decay; boobs at the Superbowl,
same-gender marriage, "activist" judges *legislating for* abortion and
gay marriage from the bench. Bus

sh himself made moral issues a
centerpiece in the campaign, playing to and giving voice to the fears
of both religious conservatives and the public at large. It is Bush's
politics of fear that I find revolting and repulsive. Reminds me of a
criminal enterprise used to extort

rotection money from a fearful
public.

I find this superfical at best. Looking at opinion polls going into the
election, moral issues were not the deciding factor for most voters, the
economy was number one followed by national security issues.
Fear of terrorism isn't irrational, Osama blew up the World Trade Center and we
all watched on TV. Whether you feel that Bush's response was adequete, proper
or
justified is another question, but being concerned about recurring acts in just
being reasonable and rational.
SYOTR
Larry C.

Frederick Burroughs wrote:
riverman wrote:

"Tinkerntom" wrote:

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.



OK. How about "CONSERVE"? And how about "its about time...."


Now there's a word you don't hear much anymore. I wonder how many
times it appears in Cheney's secret energy task force
recommendations?
It has been made public that atomic energy (to use the old term)
needs
to be revitalized, and will not result in production of greenhouse
gases. Which, the Bush administration has said with forked tongue,
has
not been scientifically proven to be a cause of global warming.

Very recently, there have been public meetings for comment on a
proposal by the Virginia Department of Transportation to widen
Interstate 81 from four lanes to eight. A couple years ago these
plans
were all but terminated in light of budget deficits. Negotiations are

now taking place between VDOT and STARS, a company owned by Cheney's
Halliburton.

I have a personal suspicion, unsupported by any collaborative
evidence, that the doubling of the width of I-81, with segregated
lanes for tractor-trailer traffic, is in preparation for
transportation of radioactive waste via interstate routes west to
Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Another suspicion is that Halliburton may be planning to use state
and
federal highway funds to subsidize the laying of pipelines parallel

to highway construction.






--
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me

- From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon

Since you mention the Interstate Highway system, They were originally
established as federal defense corridors during the cold war. They are
designed such that the feds could close them down and block them off,
and be used solely for federal purposes. I don't know if they could get
away with that now that a lot of us have got use to using them, but
that was the original plan, as confirmed by a retired federal emergency
preparedness planner.

So I am sure that to use them as you suggest, is certainly in the
sights of someone. But then the right of driving our car on the
interstate is not assured in the Constitution. Matter of fact I don't
recall Connie saying anything about cars or driving at all. Must have
been an oversight.

Of course that gets me to rivermans big word of "conserve". Maybe the
best way to conserve would be to just confiscate all the
"unconstitutional" cars and let us walk again. That would probably
solve the whole oil crisis, and at the same time solve the "fat nation"
problem. I think you could be on to something riverman, unless that is
not exactly what you had in mind. I suspect the latter!

Conserve is good. Alternative fuel sourse is good. Again do you have
any practical "black and white" suggestions. To do all this while we
have reserves to carry us through transition is wise, But who says we
are wise. Usually we wait until the situation is critical, and then
think that if we throw enough money at it we can fix anything. Maybe
when the price of oil gets high enough, we will be able to develope oil
shale, or coal.

So the real question comes down to how much are you willing to pay for
a gallon of gas, in order to keep driving. Maybe the feds won't have to
close the highway, they will be the only ones that can afford the gas
to drive their nuke waste trucks on the highway that runs through
Sherwood Forest! But then conservation and the environment will not be
the hot issue, but how we have enough fire wood to cook our beans and
stay warm, without cutting down the whole forest! TnT

Bill Tuthill wrote:
Larry C wrote:

[gay marriage]
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.

Correct. Many of today's wedge issues are irrelevant to most people.
The Sierra Club makes an issue of the Alaska National Wildlife
Refuge,
but I don't expect to ever go there, and am much more concerned about
river access, parklands near home, and useless traffic lights that
exacerbate pollution while cars idle. I've never heard the Sierra
Club
advocate removing or flow-timing traffic lights! And yet it could
probably reduce pollution more than scrapping every SUV in the
country.

Here, here, I am with you on this one Bill! TnT

"Frederick Burroughs" wrote in message
...
Larry C wrote:



Fear is credited by many for their vote for a 2nd-term Bush. There is the
fear of terrorism, with an appearance by the architect of modern
terrorism, Osama bin Laden, just days before the election. Bush's response
to this threat, questionable as to effectiveness, at least is seen as
strong and decisive by the voters.

Closer to home is the fear of moral decay; boobs at the Superbowl,
same-gender marriage, "activist" judges *legislating for* abortion and gay
marriage from the bench. Bush himself made moral issues a centerpiece in
the campaign, playing to and giving voice to the fears of both religious
conservatives and the public at large. It is Bush's politics of fear that
I find revolting and repulsive. Reminds me of a criminal enterprise used
to extort protection money from a fearful public.



??? Pot and kettle.

Sounds like you voted for someone else because you were afraid of Bush.

"Larry Cable" wrote in message
...

I find this superfical at best. Looking at opinion polls going into the
election, moral issues were not the deciding factor for most voters, the
economy was number one followed by national security issues.
Fear of terrorism isn't irrational, Osama blew up the World Trade Center
and we
all watched on TV. Whether you feel that Bush's response was adequete,
proper
or
justified is another question, but being concerned about recurring acts in
just
being reasonable and rational.


3000 people died in a country of 250,000,000. And this was an attack that
was off the scales of impact. If its rational to be afraid that you will
actually be harmed in a repeat terrorist attack, then you must live in
absolute constant paralysis of being killed in a car wreck.

The actual risk of being harmed in a terrorist attack is miniscule, but not
the percieved risk. Bush milked that percieved risk for all he could get out
it, which included a second term.

Talk to me about actual vs percieved risk. I was a river guide for 15 years,
and live in Kinshasa. People who voted their own personal safety WERE duped.

--riverman