Once I was canvassing for a PIRG to support renewal of the Superfund toxic waste cleanup. Most of the citizens I spoke to were mildly sympathetic to the idea of helping the environment. But one gentleman told me his religious beliefs forbade him from supporting environmentalism. He said the Second Coming was near and this world should be forsaken as evil… or something like that.
Is there really a belief in some strains of Christian fundamentalism that environmentalism is sinful? That the environment must not be preserved? Because the world is inherently evil?
Are any such beliefs among Republicans influencing the Bush administration’s policy on the environment?
There are some who have tried to portray environmentalism as “worshipping Mother Earth”, and thus something Christians should eschew; I heard this ridiculous charge levied at Al Gore multiple times during the 2000 election.
Others believe, as your story indicates, that the end of the world is coming, so supporting environmental causes is wasting money that could be given to more worthy causes, like televangelists.
My theory is that this is a coordinated attempt by Republicans/right-wingers over the years to convince Christians–who should support stewardship of God’s creation–to support their environmental policies.
Yes, some extremist forms of environmentalism can be psuedo-religious, and that does set off the heretic meter for fundamentalists.
But the main issue IMO is that fundamentalists in general see things in “us v. them” terms; and since they clearly fit in more with conservatives/Republicans on other issues, there is a real tendency just to assume that that is the side of goodness and light, even if common sense and/or the Bible implies otherwise. Republicans are “right” on abortion etc., thus they must be “right” on other things. The same sort of cognative dissonance happens on both sides of the aisle.
FWIW the operative Biblical concept would be that man has “dominion” over the earth. Some read that to mean “we are held responsible for this planet entrusted to us,” others as “hey, we own the place.”
The most (in)famous proponent of that particular brand millennialism was James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan, who actually made comments to the effect that some long-term goals of the environmental movement were a waste of time because the End Times were imminent. (I’m not sure how God felt about Watt unilaterally deciding to sell off government lands at pennies on the dollar to people who happened to share his political beliefs.)
I think the notion that those Fundamentalists who read “dominion” as “It’s ours and we can do as we like with it” are not blindly following the party line on the Right. I suspect that among those people who truly believe that the End Times are upon us, it simply does not make sense to forego the use of the land (to whatever use it is put) when they are going to be Raptured pretty soon, anyway.
I also doubt that the people who hold that belief make up a very large number of people. There are any number of Fundamentalist Christians who are very much concerned with environmental issues. The dominion=wanton use position is not a matter of doctrine so much as one belief held by a small number among those believers.
(When Gingrich promoted his Contract on America, there were several anti-environmental statements phrased as “government interference” points. When the Congress went to pass legislation in support of those points, they were compelled by public outcry to tone down their anti-environmental bills because their constituents were horrified by what they had proposed–and many of their constituents were among the Religious Right.)
Echoing DoctorJ, in my former fundamentalist charismatic church, anything that fell out of the realm of strictly Christian (music, movies, books, questionable clothing, etc., etc., but especially principles) were considered secular and therefore to be avoided at all costs and denounced as ‘evil.’ I can see how someone would categorize environmentalism in this category, along with anything else that didn’t encompass witnessing or devoting all of your energies (despite normal life) towards your beliefs. I mean, think of all the people who’s businesses incorporate their faith, won’t listen to any music but spiritual and refuse to view (or participate in, if you can’t games and such – like ouija boards are Satan’s work!) a thing that might be considered objectionable and jeopardizing.
And those who relied on anything AT ALL other than God (even just in addition to), weren’t following His law, will, instructions and word. So, what was hardest hit was called (at least where I was – east Texas) “secular humanism” or “new age philosophy.” They’re main gripe seemed to hinge on any of it being self-help or negating God’s dominion, which the opposite would be our complete inferiority and ineptness, over everything and not giving Him complete and utter control.
It ultimately meant… how dare anyone for being so arrogant that they could do anything for themselves?!! Only God can fix/do what is needed. Relying on one’s self meant denouncement of all things holy and embracement of the darkside. And whatever it is, doesn’t have to even correlate to real world ideas of charity and compasion, just not be on the ‘wrong’ path rather than the ‘true’ one. However benign, moderates or non-Christians may view the issue, a lot feel that even someone like Barry Manilow (apologies if the man is Christian – I’m just using him here as an off-the-top-of-my-head example) as bad. If you’re not specifically for, than you are against. So, environmentalists are wasting their efforts on works not necessary for the proper walk with your creator. Unless of course, you use it as a means for proselytizing, then it’s undoubtedly ok.
Make sense? Didn’t to me then either. But, lots of folks think like that around these parts. Don’t know why they have to be mutually exclusive. I think it’s sad.
I have witnessed various expressions of anti-environment (probably better described as anti-environmental conservation) among my fundamentalist brethren; on inquiry, it seems to be comprised of several components which for brevity, I will exaggerate somewhat:
When Jesus returns, the state of the Earth is predicted to be screwed. Let’s screw the Earth so he comes back quicker.
Environmental conservationists are all Pagans/Earth-worshippers.
God gave us the Earth to use, not to keep.
I will not attempt to defend any of these positions because they are not my own, however, they (or something similar enough to them that you’d recognise it) do represent real opinions among my particular little circle of fundie acquaintances.
I heard variations of all of the above during my time as an environment campaigner. I also remember some charismatic Catholics saying they could not join an environmental group because environmentalists were pro-choice.
So… you’re saying that the Republican party does not make a concerted effort to sway the opinions of the voting public, and of the Christian right in particular, towards supporting their own political agenda?
“God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’”—Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01
Ann Coulter
Except the attacks have not been limited to being on “extremist forms of environmentalism.” The objects of the attacks have included the EPA in general, the ban on DDT, and the concerns about global climate change. Here is a particularly “good” example, a speech by Michael Chricton which I have unfortunately seen lauded by many people.
Admittedly, these attacks seem to be coming more from the “market fundamentalists” more than from religious fundamentalists.
Again, this is a case of the perception that environmentalism = liberal, liberal = against traditional values, traditional values = christianity, therefore environmentalism = unchristian. A false sequence, but a strong one nonetheless.
Right. I also think it is a case of “bedfellows”…I.e., the really strong anti-environmentalism on the right comes from the libertarian / market-fundamentalist organizations such as Cato, National Center for Policy Analysis [NCPA], and the Competitive Enterprise Institute [CEI], often with considerable corporate funding from the likes of Exxon-Mobil and Western Fuels Association. Things like climate change don’t seem to be very hot-button issues with the religious right for the most part but to the extent they do take a stand on them, they tend to align with their conservative breathren.
Erg gives several speeches on how all natural resources must be used up or destroyed in order to bring about the apocalypse. Then, he turns into a giant gopher and shouts ‘The heck with the environment! Profits! Cash! Money! That’s all that matters!’
I thought fundamentalists are opposed to gambling,and yet here they are betting the Earth that their interpretation of an ancient religious text is true and reliable.
There may be a deeper psychological component to this. Consider the authoritarian personality type – the type that values toughness over weakness, that pays blind tribute to the strong, that believes might makes right. These are the people that sometimes claim that the Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves, for instance.
This line of thinking sometimes finds expression in support of various Republican stances. Dislike of anything “gay” (AKA “weak”). Support for increased military spending. Support for the death penalty (“fry 'em all!”).
Fundamentalism is taylor-made for these people. A vengeful and angry god that will destroy all the heretics is 100% in line with the emotional needs of these people.
Now this:
Or wimps. Coddling Mother Earth doesn’t sound manly to me. Being “green” is like being a fag. It’s being on the side of fluffy little bunnies, and we can’t have any of that.
Viewed in that light (and there are studies to support this theory), it makes total sense.
Oh yeah, we wouldn’t want to “appease” the environment, now. Those hurricanes just hate America, so we’ve got to have the “resolve” to stand up to them and show 'em who’s boss.
