The Judeo-Christian tradition is part of the environmental problem and is irrelevant to the solution. Religious institutions have long been a driving force behind the changing of our country. While most of these changes have been for the better, there is one issue in which they are not stepping up: environmental impact. In fact, many church practices are exacerbating the problem through lack of population control such as birth control, dominionism based on Genesis 1:28, and lack of foresight for future generations since they are focusing on souls now. The issue with the rising population has grown to become a major factor in the depletion of natural resources. In third world countries, the mere satisfaction of basic human needs is jeopardized (Rath, 2009).
Our Position
According to a recent Bloomberg Poll, 71% of Americans believe that climate change is a threat (Environment, 2009). As the religious world jumps on the environmental bandwagon, ready to solve the world’s problems yet again, Americans who claim religious affiliation are losing ground. According to the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), more people than ever in the United States are reporting to have no religious affiliation whatsoever. The percentage of people reporting no religious affiliation was 8% in 1990. However, in 2008 the number increased to 15%. This places non-religious individuals in the U.S. at a higher percentage than all other major religious groups other than Catholic and Baptist. Even the Catholic and Baptist following is receding by 1.1% and 3.5% respectively (Grossman, 2009). How can the ever growing environmental problem have a solution based on a tradition that is losing ground?
Judeo-Christians have justified copious wrongdoings to nature based on a single Bible verse (Genesis 1:28) that tells them to “subdue the earth” and “have dominion over every living thing.” It is incredulous that this verse is either interpreted as environmental stewardship or as Yale theologian Julian Hartt puts it a way Christians have found that “legitimized man’s total exploitation of his environment.” This view of using nature is referred to as dominionism and many people use it as an excuse to exploit our natural resources. A few Christians have come to see the fault in this line of thinking though; the most famous of which being St. Francis of Assisi, patron saint of ecologists, who “in vain tried to substitute the idea of the equality of all creatures, including man, for the idea of man’s limitless rule of creation,”- Mr. White (historian, in Science magazine). Though stewardship seems to be the more likely interpretation (God and Noah saving every species from the flood) many like to use dominionism as a means of being excluded from moral responsibilities to nature and all within it.
Some environmentalists have views which add a sense of extreme urgency to the environmental problem. They believe that the best that they can do is wait until humans destroy the earth to a point where industrial civilization will collapse and bring about a renewing of the earth (Taylor, 1999, pg 378). It is believed that the damage that humans have already done is so extensive that ecosystems are guaranteed to fail and bring forth the collapse of civilization as we know it (Taylor, 1999, pg 381). James Barnes, and Earth First! Environmental activist, stated the earth’s situation best by saying, “The planet will not be ‘saved’ by the people’s new ecological consciousness” (Taylor, 1999, pg 381). Barnes also made this statement, “how does a seriously overpopulated species reduce its numbers? It dies back. Death is the answer to too much life” (Taylor, 1999, pg 381). He continues to state that like any other animal, humans revert to carnal behaviors. As space decreases, so does the ability to treat each other and the environment the way they deserve. Stress can cause very undesirable behaviors. This frame of mind states that the collapse of the earth as we know it will bring about a great sense of hope and renewal (Taylor, 1999, pg 381).
Their Position
As far as we can see, the entire buzz about churches going green is coming from a select few churches affecting a small following. The majority of churches agree that creation care and environmental stewardship are good things but they are sometimes afraid of stepping up due to the issue being traditionally liberal or democratic.
Matthew 24:7 states a picture of the end of the world, “For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in diverse places.” Food shortages, swine flu, and many earthquakes throughout the year show just how close to the end times we are. Jesus is coming soon and will make a new heaven and a new earth. The earth we are on now was to be used, and we are just about done using it.
Conclusion
One way that this could be solved is if the human population stopped reproducing entirely, but that’s preposterous and would never happen. Political power and money however, could have and have had a huge voice in the environmental movement.
References
"Environment." PollingReport.com. Selzer & Co., 14 Sept. 2009. Web. 25 Oct. 2009.
Grossman, Cathy L. "Most religious groups in USA have lost ground, survey finds." USA Today. USA Today, 17 Mar. 2009. Web. 13 Oct. 2009.
Hawley, Amos. Man and Environment. New Viewpoints (New York), 1975. p239-241
Rath, C. M., Ferdinand J. "Population Problems: A Constituent of General Culture in the 21st Century." International Review of Education 39 (1993): 5-13. Jstor. Web. 25 Oct. 2009.
Taylor, Bron. "Review Commentary: Green Apocalypticism: Understanding Disaster in the Radical Environmental Worldview." Society and Natural Resources 12 (1999): 377-86.
Group A's main points include the growing athiest population in the United states and the narrow mindedness of the Judeo-Christians in their teachings on nature and the environment. The leaders of these Judeo-Christian orginizations are not stepping up (as stated in the position paper). Athiest beliefs hinder the total number of Americans reached by any sort of religious suggestions, therefore the issues regarding nature and the environment fall as a moot point to them. Especially with their growing numbers, as Group A points out, it is harder to reach to the American population in the way of religion. The part of the population with Judeo-Christian beleif is being slandered with a lackluster argument. A single line from Genesis is the main focus of their leader's movement. I like your focus in the document but would like to see some statistics of this same issue at a global level. Is America the only country with this current movement?
ReplyDeleteGroup A:
ReplyDeleteChristian churches have taken a stance on current environmental issues. However the churches are loosing the support of parishioners as shown in current polls. Most of the church’s interaction with nature is based off of Genesis 1:28 which tell them to subdue the earth and have dominion over every living thing. This verse created the beliefs of stewardship (responsible resource use) and dominionism (man rules all). James Barnes an environmental activist discusses that as the population grows like that of animals then “death is the answer to much of life”. The group believes that the use of political power and money to manipulate the population is the answer to our problems.
The Judeo-Christian foresight removes oneself from the wordly sense of time, space and environment. They are taught to see through an eternal perspective. For this reason, I partially agree with this group's argument. It will be extremely difficult to change the socialization of the people in these religious institutions. I disagree with points from their position statement, though. Especially when they drastically underestimate the remaining power of the church in the community and in the world. The green movement began at the grassroots level and is very much still in this stage of development. It is imperative that the Judeo-Christian institutions get on board with current environmental issues and make it their responsibility, in the name of their Savior, to revitalize and purify this world.
ReplyDeleteThe amount of people identifying themselves with a specific relisiou group (going from 8%-15%)does not reflect that chirches are environmentally irresponsible, but rather that perhaps those that do not identify themselves as members of religious groups are environmentally irresponsible. Also, in refernce to human population control, the distribution of contraceptives is unrealistic on a worldwide scale. Human population will continue to grow and prosper, it is education and a positive influence on these people that is needed to infect change on large groups of people. Judeo-Christian groups that are working towards a more sustainable and "greener" future are not disabling those who are not religious from following suite, but enabling and educating others.
ReplyDeleteGroup A’s position is that the church is working against the environmental movement by not discouraging population growth and using biblical scriptures suggesting human dominion over nature to justify environmental damage. They also argue that the church will not be effective in encouraging a reverse in trends of environmental degradation because they are losing followers and therefore influence. It is money and politics that will have the biggest effect on encouraging people to become better stewards of the environment. I agree that the church has conveyed a message that eventually translates to justification of harm being done to the environment (population growth), but I feel that the intention was to benefit the church, which has been losing followers, and not to dominate creation. I think that the church needs to take a more pro-active role in developing and encouraging a positive environmental ethic because its influence still exists, although shrinking. I think that it is dangerous to rely solely on economics and politics to be the force behind the environmental movement because humans are after all spiritual beings
ReplyDeleteGroup A’s position states that the churches are independent of the environmental movement, and in fact, that they are hastening environmental degradation. The opening statement is set up to make it seem like people are abandoning church for the environmental movement. Genesis 1:28 is a strong argument for the position, but there isn’t enough to refute the other teams interpretation of Genesis. When “Death is the answer to too much life” is quoted, this is of course in the eyes of a techno-skeptic. The other team may be able to say that technology will hold off any death from overpopulation. I don’t agree that churches have small influences on the environment. Even if a church doesn’t have an environmental stance, those 71% of Americans that believe climate change is a threat may take up the issue on their own.
ReplyDeleteGroup A:
ReplyDeleteAside from the statistics showing that religious groups are losing support, your argument seems to rely heavily on generalizations and pessimistic predictions. For example, one of your main points is that Judeo-Christian believers have been commanded to “subdue the earth” and be multiply in numbers. While these are included in the Bible, there are many other sections devoted to respect for creation. What about the examples discussed in class showing that many religious groups feel that God has given them the responsibility to act as environmental caretakers? Groups using scripture to justify environmentally damaging actions seem to be the minority rather than the norm.
Group A argues that the Judeo-Christian traditions will have little effect on human’s impact on the environment due to the fact they are losing ground in America themselves. They use polls to talk about both American’s views on the environment, and whether or not they are religiously affiliated, to show how more Americans are becoming concerned about the environment, while less are concerned about religion. This inverse correlation shows that religion can’t have that great of an impact on our impact on the environment.
ReplyDeleteGroup A states that there is a problem in the lack of religious response to environmental change; therefore Judeo-Christian tradition is at most irrelevant to Earth’s environmental solutions. The first issue the group dissects is population growth. With that population rise the world is seeing less Christian followers making it very difficult to have an impact on the political and environmental issues. Less followers means less appeal to the masses, and less appeal to the masses means less backing, without backing from government and its people there will be no change. The focus of this position paper is strong for debate but would be nice to see statistics so that the reader may have an idea of who is a “believer” and who is a “non-believer”.
ReplyDeleteGroup A’s position is that the Judeo-Christian religious beliefs are part of the environmental problem and not part of the solution. They quote facts that depict the decline in religion’s popularity in the United States. Furthermore, they believe that the Judeo-Christian values about birth control are an important reason why religion is not the key to solving environmental problems, including overpopulation. Group A also brings up the issue of dominionism and how it pervades most religious thinking. I completely agree with them on this as many people I have met feel like they do not need to care about the environment now since they will not be staying here for long anyway.
ReplyDeleteGroup A’s position argues that Judeo-Christian emphasis helps to deteriorate the environment. Yes, Genesis does say to take dominion over the land. However, this was while Adam and Eve were still in the Garden of Eden. They also say that the U.S. population is increasingly becoming non religious. Those percentages do not include Christians who do not belong to churches. I am a Baptist but I do not belong to a church therefore I am not included in those poles. Yes, climate change is happening but it can not be blamed on religion.
ReplyDeleteGroup A is arguing that the judeo-christian tradition is part of the environmental problem. Beliefs, such as not using birth control, just escalate already large problems such as increasing population. People with no religious affiliation though are in the rise, dominating the percentages of all other religious groups. With this being said, Group A wonders how environmental problems can be solved by a group that is losing its believers, quickly. The first point, how these beliefs and traditions are adding to the environmental problems, still needs to be addressed. Genesis encourages believers to dominate the land and exploit the earth, something that seems anti-environmental.
ReplyDeleteGroup A’s position paper ahs some good arguments. I’m still a little confused by the overall message, so I look forward to the debate.
Group A’s position is that the Judeo-Christian tradition is part of the environmental problem and is irrelevant to the problem. The group says the main problem with the church is how they don’t discouraged population growth in the belief that humans are dominant over nature and should exploit nature. I like the polls the group talked about with the increasing population of atheist showing less impact religious group’s play. I also liked to see the group talk about the main scripture Genesis 1:28 and how it is they interpret the scripture I would have liked to see more about the other team’s interpretation to further prove their point. It would also be very interesting to see if there is any relationship to European countries that have a high religious population and how they play into the environmental factor.
ReplyDeleteGroup A believes that religion has no place in environmental advocacy and that in many cases organized religion has cause significant environmental conflict. Citing specifically the Christian ideal of dominion over nature, they argue Judeo-Christian religion has lead to man's exploitative mentality towards nature. Furthermore, they bring up that a religious-green movement would not be significant enough to make a difference anyway. They show that church memberships are declining and thus less relevant in this debate and strong political action is the only feasible option for effective action.
ReplyDeleteGroup A argues that religion does not have a place in the environmental movement. Their argument seems to be centered on the question: “How can the ever growing environmental problem have a solution based on a tradition that is losing ground?” They present that the Christian pulpits are an inefficient mouth-piece for environmental activism, but shouldn’t discredit the religious efforts to “green” because every little bit helps. I agree that environmentalism should not be funneled exclusively through the pulpit, but I also do not see the harm in allowing faith-based communities to interpret the call of the environmental movement through their own lenses, as ultimately the end justifies the means. We want this demographic on-board ideologically, does it really matter how they come to agree?
ReplyDeleteGroup A’s position is that the church has no place in making environmental policy or setting an environmental agenda of any kind. This is an interesting argument, since there is significant overlap in people who both consider themselves to be affiliated with a church and consider the environment to be a major issue. They make a case for Judeo/Christian traditions tending to lead towards dominionism, or a sense that we as humans are the rulers of the environment. This may be true, but that does not mean that traditions cannot be broken. It seems that the effective use of the church as a front against environmental degradation would lead to significant progress. The proposed solution that “political power and money” could have a major impact on the environment is, of course, true. However, it seems plausible that those solutions COMBINED with support from religious groups would excite the population into even greater change.
ReplyDeleteI can see the general argument Group A is developing concerning the religious institutions' lack of power in the issue of swaying public opinion on environmental issues. As mentioned in a previous comment, most of the arguments are based on generalizations and some excerpts from articles which do not fully convince me on the change in values a religion would do to its people. I recommend finding more evidence of religion negatively affecting our environment as a justification or simply to carry out practices.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not feel that the decline of religious followers is an important point because the numbers are still enormous. If the church can convince its followers that degradation is a serious problem and they work to fix it, the impact will be great. I think the small amount of peercentage decrease seen is insignificant. You might want to focus more on the idea of misinterpretation of scripture or overdevelpoment of Genesis.
ReplyDeleteAs with the rest of the world, religious institutions do not see environmental problems as urgent enough to immediately try solve them. It will take a large catastrophy to open the eyes of not only the church but the world as a whole. It must impact everyone greatly in order to initiate a change.
ReplyDeleteGroup A seems to be saying that the ongoing movement of the Judo- Christian churches going “green” will really not have any effect on the environmental problems that were facing today. Sharp decreases in the percentage of Americans who consider themselves to be religious translates into the churches having less influence on peoples actions. They also argue that most religious people still look at the earth as a resource to be used for their own benefit and that what happens to the earth ultimately doesn’t matter because we are all just going to heaven anyways. Ultimately Group A argues that the only thing that is ever going to make a difference in the environmental movement is money and politics. I agree that money and politics will always play a large role in the success or failure of the environmental movement but I think they are underestimating how large a role religion plays in who gets money and what happens in politics.
ReplyDeleteGroup A argues that the church's m using ovement to help the environment will not be much of a benifit. They say that a major problem is not using birth control. Some people just want to have families. I think that Christian organizations could have a positive effects because so many people are influenced by religion.
ReplyDelete* above it should say "the church's movement to help..." sorry
ReplyDeleteThis argues that the judeo-christian movement is not instrumental or useful to the environmental movement. While they discuss the ways the church tends to oppose environmental causes (encouraging "dominion over the earth", discouraging the use of birth control) they do not discuss the differences between different faiths. Currently, there are so many branches of belief, it is difficult to make any sweeping conclusions. Certain groups do not disapprove of birth control. Not every group encourages people to "subdue" the earth. As this group notes, there is a small "green" movement, but again, this is just another small group within all religious organizations. These groups are not fully united so it seems unproductive to try to get them involved. Political groups and volunteer organizations are more likely to have a greater draw and can be based more about the subject in question.
ReplyDelete