Skip to main content

View Diary: Killing the world because Jesus (212 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Time for first amendment restrictions... (3+ / 0-)

    Sorry, but the constitution was designed for responsible adults who can make rational decisions about what they do. Today's modern conservatives are not that. When you start using your religion as an excuse to put everyone else in danger, it's time to rethink that whole "freedom of religion" thing.

    •  Great point. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      No one gets out alive

      The Constitution and social institutions in general suppose that people actually share a common interest in making society work, even if they disagree about how to do it.  That common interest no longer exists.  

      •  Not sure it ever really worked. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        No one gets out alive, SuWho

        Classical Liberalism is (at it's core) a lot of half baked assumptions about human nature.

        Hence, it has since evolved into:  Socialism, Social Democracy and Social Liberalism.  It had too, or the whole thing would've collapsed in the 1890's.

        I don't think the problem is the 1st Am.....rather it's the underlying notion that people are 'rational actors.'  When's the last time you noticed that? (Economics shares the same problem)

        This space for rent -- Cheap!

        by jds1978 on Thu May 02, 2013 at 07:27:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think that's ridiculous. (7+ / 0-)

      We don't have to rethink freedom of religion.  We just need to separate church and state which is the real problem.  

      We need politicians who have the courage to say, "Hey, your crazy rapture stuff is all fine for you to believe and hope for, but just in case there could be an apocalypse and no rapture if we don't do something about climate change, we are going to do something about climate change."

      •  How do we insure that? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        That's the problem. These redneck idiots are willing to put all life in danger because they think the world will end on their watch. How do we reign in their excess? Couple that with the fact that a lot of these guys are paid shills for the oil industry to begin with.

        •  Look - they are the modern equivalent of (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SuWho, aitchdee, mmacdDE

          Luddites.  They can hang onto their religious views and wasteful lifestyles, but they can't continue to do damage if we collectively move on to infrastructure and systems that are less harmful to the environment.

          People didn't want electricity or phones, but they were delivered to them and ultimately the technology was adopted almost universally.  The same thing will happen with green tech if the government and we as a society push it forward.

          As for the oil industry, they've got to adapt to the fact that they are pursuing a resource that is ultimately going to disappear - if they want to be "energy companies" in the future, then they've got to start to find other ways of creating energy.

          •  Those things were adopted because (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            They were better in many ways than what people had before.

            Inside plumbing is much more convent than running outside to fetch water. Electric lights are much safer and easier than gas lights or candles. Having a phone means you can talk to people without a long, expensive trip. Modern heating systems mean you don't have to lug coal or wood.

            More people will buy electric cars when they can go as far as gas ones, and when charging stations are as ubiquitous as gas stations and almost as fast. People will buy them before that, but it will take the cars being better or cheaper than gas ones to drive demand.

            Power companies will switch to green tech when there's an advantage. So give them a big, huge, tax credit for switching and turning off those old plants, and they'll start changing yesterday.

            •  Electric cars aren't a solution because (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mmacdDE, tacet, trumpeter, Beetwasher

              we still rely on fossil fuels for much of our electricity.  The changes that need to be made are on the scale of the greater infrastructure system.  

              No one really cares how they power their electric refrigerator - just that it is powered and kept cold.  The fossil fuel industry has worked hard to make sure people care about keeping fossil fuels at the forefront of the power grid's energy consumption, but people would not have a problem with switching to other solutions if they worked and gave them the electricity that they need.

              The problem with focusing on things like CFLs or electric cars is that neither solves the real problem we have which is that dependence on fossil fuels is ultimately going to be a dead end road.  

              Regardless of whether or not we are destroying the climate by using fossil fuels, the fact is that we are running out of them and we have to adapt and innovate on a grand scale if we want to keep our fridges cold and the lights on.  Using less fossil fuel won't prevent us from running out of it - it will only make that happen at a slightly slower pace - a slower march towards the dead end in the road.

              If we don't adopt alternatives, we will not only be enduring the real and dramatic negative effects of climate change, but also be positioning ourselves for wars and battles over limited resources.  The countries that get off of the fossil fuel grid the fastest and most completely will be the emergent powers in the next world order.  Talk about being "left behind" if we Americans don't get our act together.

              •  Exactly (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                inclusiveheart, Beetwasher

                That's why I proposed a huge tax credit for power companies that start moving to green tech now. They'll have to later, but that will be too late to stop the cutbacks in electricity and all the pain that would create.

                The only thing they respond to is money NOW. So give them a reason to invest in green tech now, because without that incentive, they won't do it.

                And you're right. Nobody cares where the electricity comes from (well, most don't), they only care that there's enough and it's cheap.

    •  Freedom to be loud and ignorant (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Be Skeptical

      You'd be hard pressed to find someone with more contempt, loathing and militant hostility towards religion than myself, however, placing restrictions on speech and religious idiocy is not an acceptable course of action. Free people should be allowed to believe and espouse any damned fool thing they wish. When it does harm to others, that is the only time when government intervention is acceptable.

      +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

      by cybersaur on Thu May 02, 2013 at 06:56:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Expression isn't the problem; political influence (4+ / 0-)


      I agree in the sense that Money deserves no First Amendment--or any other Amendment--protection.  Churches, like corporations, should not get to use Money as First Amendment expression of free speech or religion.  In that respect, let's draw a line between Speech & Advertising.


      It's time to start letting sleeping dinosaurs lie, lest we join them in extinction by our consumption of them.

      by Leftcandid on Thu May 02, 2013 at 07:10:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site