Skip to main content

View Diary: Green Diary Rescue & Open Thread (161 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Do Religion and Environmentalism Mix? (10+ / 0-)

    Ask the founding fathers, who were Deists. they saw god all around them, in nature.

    "we must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization" - Al Gore

    by racerx on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:45:06 PM PDT

    •  At the last Nuke protest I was at (4+ / 0-)

      I heard citizen after citizen from various christian groups, protestant and catholic, speak about the need of stewardship and human rights.

      Very moving.

      "What is the robbing of a Bank compared to the FOUNDING of a Bank?" Bertolt Brecht

      by thethinveil on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:49:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Jewish Renewal (5+ / 0-)

      Jewish Renewal, which is the name of the movement that ALEPH heads up, is in many ways different than other streams of Judaism and especially different from other religions. It's often seen as the leftiest of the Jewish streams. I think that's pigeonholing it a little bit, but whatever. Close enough.

      I would probably identify as a Reform or Conservative Jew, depending on which day of the week you catch me, but it's not that I reject Renewal. And the biggest influence it has on me is its environmental agenda, which is an integral part of the movement and one of its best draws.

      Check out Tikkun magazine for more. Anyway, I say religion and environmentalism mix if your religion doesn't dismiss "this world" as flawed and Satanic.

      And I would tell you, they would say they see god all around them, in nature.

      Live from the ochlocracy of California.

      by Attorney at Arms on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 10:23:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There's a strain of evangelicals who... (6+ / 0-)

      ... go on the general premise that "if God created it, who are we to destroy it."  Even if I don't share all their beliefs, I can definitely find solid grounds for coalition on that one.

      The river always wins. -- Mark Twain

      by Land of Enchantment on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 10:34:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nonsense (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      koNko, A Siegel

      Religious thinking has little to say about, for example, what is the appropriate amount of particulates that should be in the air...

      Posh. "I have a dream" was a religious sermon climaxing in a thunderous quote from the Bible. I suppose people felt it easier to deal with complex issues of proportionate representation in local school systems after that, though Dr. King didn't go into the details.

      •  Indeed! (0+ / 0-)

        Religious thinking has little to say about, for example, what is the appropriate amount of particulates that should be in the air...

        Posh.

        Wow--really?

        Could you cite for us the Biblical chapter and verse that describes acceptable levels of airborne particulates?

        Zasloff credits religion for its capacity for "broad-based moral reasoning and intuition" (though, of course, neither one is the property of religion alone). As he explains, those functions fall short of explaining, "for example, what is the appropriate amount of particulates that should be in the air, or whether climate change should be tackled by cap-and-trade, or a carbon tax, or command-and-control regulation." Religion per se is thus insufficient to the task of finding answers to such questions. Do you seriously disagree?


        I suppose people felt it easier to deal with complex issues of proportionate representation in local school systems after that, though Dr. King didn't go into the details.

        Details that, one might (but you don't) note, ain't in the Bible. Or indeed in religion qua religion at all. Which is Zasloff's point. Again, are you seriously contending he's wrong about that?


        Goodness. The level of suffocating religious privilege in these parts is just ridiculous. Even the mildest critique of religion gets one scolded and smeared. How regrettable.

        •  Oh, for Heaven's sake (0+ / 0-)

          I tend to the more disrespectful and snide wing of atheism, but if the Evangelicals come in singing hymns for God's green planet then I will not bother them about what's in the Bible and what's not. We need every hand we can get.

          •  Relevance? (0+ / 0-)

            I was--am--trying to explain to several people on this thread the basic points Zasloff was trying to make. You called one of his central assertions "Posh," and have now presented nothing at all to support that conclusion.

            Zasloff was making a simple and--I thought!--well nigh indisputable point about religion: it doesn't even purport to answer crucial policy questions, such as which is the ideal cap-and-trade (or for that matter school integration) regime. You called that observation "Posh," which is just bizarre. Now you abandon the entire issue and decide to talk about "Evangelicals com[ing] in singing hymns for God's green planet." What in the world does that have to do with anything? What gives you the slightest inkling that Zasloff, or anyone who has posted here, would throw said Evangelicals out if they did?

    •  Amazing how people can always (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      koNko
      work their anti-religious crap into ANY issue. Of course all the while arguing for acceptance for whatever cause THEY happen to be pushing at the time. Please help, please donate, please volunteer, oh and by the way, you religious people are full of shit.

      We are God's stewards on this planet, in this universe, in his world. We are obligated to take care of the Earth. We were told to take care of each other.

      I have no problem with atheists and agnostics. But apparently people with religious beliefs like myself are now detrimental to the environment? Is that the story?

      •  I find it amazing (0+ / 0-)

        how people--including many Kossacks--react to even the mildest critique of religious ideas and practices by shrieking about "anti-religious crap."

        Calm the hell down. Jonathan Zasloff nowhere says or implies that "you religious people are full of shit"; you are speaking insulting nonsense.


        We are God's stewards on this planet, in this universe, in his world.

        Ah. Has it occurred to you that it follows directly from that premise that ("strong") atheist people are "full of shit"? I notice--though I don't think you did--that Zasloff never declared that your beliefs about God were false. But you just declared precisely that for my beliefs about God. I wonder what gives you the notion that you can savage other people for transgressions they haven't committed, but you have.


        But apparently people with religious beliefs like myself are now detrimental to the environment? Is that the story?

        No. You paid no attention to what Zasloff actually said. Wipe the indignant religious privilege, and your smug power-over position relative to the despised irreligious minority, out of your eyes and read Zasloff's comments again. He says nothing of the kind.


        I have no problem with atheists and agnostics.

        As long as we're silent and marginalized, sure.

        •  Mildest critiques? What a master of (0+ / 0-)

          understatement you are. And atheists and agnostics are hardly silent and marginized. They're always out hurling insults (just like you) and whining for support in the same sentences.

          The point of that whole thread that I commented on was that any belief in a deity negates any usefullness that one may have to the 'green' party.

          Don't tell me to read anything over again. People like you don't like being called on your blantant, and apparently somewhat acceptable, bigotry.

          But that doesn't stop you from whining, does it?

          P.S. Silent my ass.

          •  P.U. indeed. (0+ / 0-)

            Mildest critiques? What a master of understatement you are.

            All right, then: let's see 'em. Quote for us a non-mild critique of religion from the above diary. (Or was it racerx's comment that caused you to decide atheists had set your hair on fire? That would be rich--racerx's comment was pro-religion!)


            And atheists and agnostics are hardly silent and marginized.

            Oh, we're increasingly not "silent"--that's right. But that's precisely what's got you so pissy. See, my reference to "silent and marginalized" is a conditional statement: it describes the circumstances in which you, as you claimed, "have no problem" with us. But as you've demonstrated, once your religious privilege is challenged you start lying your ass off about us. So breaking our silence has helped, here, to identify who the privileged bigots are.

            As for "marginalized," there I'm afraid you just don't know what you're talking about.


            The point of that whole thread that I commented on was that any belief in a deity negates any usefullness that one may have to the 'green' party.

            "That whole thread"? You mean, this thread? Started by Meteor Blades' diary and racerx's pro-religion comment? Hate to break it to you, but neither one carries any sentiment remotely related to "any belief in a deity negates any usefullness [sic] that one may have to the 'green' party," or any one of the several other absurd mischaracterizations you've posted of the entries you're purportedly responding to.


            Don't tell me to read anything over again.

            Okay, you caught me presuming: Read it for the first time. The point is that you need to actually pay attention to what your interlocutors are saying. Even if you feel the need to continue with the bigotry, at least then it'll be informed bigotry.


            Silent my ass.

            I wish! (You're excused.)

            •  Okay, for you, my reply was (0+ / 0-)
              misplaced. This thread is such a rat's nest of indentated responses I didn't know where the fuck I was.

              Now, as to what I said. I meant that the whole OP was shit. There is NO reason whatsoever to bring up anything like religion and question whether or not it has a place in environmental causes OR ANY OTHER CAUSE FOR THAT MATTER.

              One of the dumbest fucking moves the left has made in the past few years is that they've pushed, actually DRIVEN, the majority of people with sincere religious conviction into the arms of the fucking right just by the dumb ass nasty shit they say. Asking whether or not religious views have any relevancy in the environmental movement was actually a call to stir up shit. And as a side note, I am assuming that they meant ALL religions, not just Christianity. But then, I could be wrong, it could just be the good old home grown natural 'we hate Christians, they're just sooooooooooo DE-LU-SION-AL' crap that I see and find offense in but ignore all the time.

              YES, MY RESPONSE ENDED UP IN THE WRONG PLACE. SO KILL ME. I bet that's never happened to you before.

            •  Rieux (0+ / 0-)

              Good job, but you seem to be medicating the dead. That person is very angry and it would appear very religious. If you can talk sense into them you are truly talented.

              My comment wasn't so much "pro-religion" as it was designed to tweak the noses of the religiously obnoxious by reminding them that many of the people they normally claim for their own were not religious (and many admired Paine, who vehemently detested Christianity). The Deists did believe in God but they saw "God's work" all around them and compared it to the garbage written in the books of the priests, and made their decisions based on enlightened philosophy. In their religious worldview, the environment was literally God's message to us, so desecrating that would be anathema.

              Compare that to the Bible telling us to multiply endlessly and to take whatever we want from the planet because Jesus will come clean up the mess soon.

              Ptui.

              "we must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization" - Al Gore

              by racerx on Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 01:05:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  It's natural that a Laywer would reject (0+ / 0-)

      Religion as a philosophical basis for environmentalism and insist on politics as the only legitimate basis since politics is the religion of lawyers.

      Appearently Jonathan Zasloff is ignorant about the naturalistic nature of many religious philosophies and doctrine.

      Some of the foremost environmentalistis in Asia, (particularly East Asia where Shinto, Dao and Buddhist religions are commonly practiced) find a philosophical and siritual basis for environmentalism in these religions which stress our origins in nature and the virture of living in harmony with it.

      Personally, I'll take as many boots on the ground for the cause as I can get and won't reject anyone based on their personal beliefs or motivations, even lawyers and politicians, a foolish as that may sound.

      Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

      by koNko on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 04:04:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Insulting and Dishonest. (0+ / 0-)

        It's natural that a Laywer would reject Religion as a philosophical basis for environmentalism and insist on politics as the only legitimate basis since politics is the religion of lawyers.

        What a ridiculous insult.

        Zasloff's comments say nothing about "legitimate" or "philosophical bas[e]s for environmentalism." You are egregiously shoving words and ideas in his mouth.

        And, of course, politics ("the process by which groups of people make decisions[,] generally applied to behaviour within civil governments") happens to be a process that is accessible to all of us, whether we happen to subscribe to your favored religions or not. Your absurd smear about "the religion of lawyers" aside, everyone can do--indeed everyone does--politics.


        Appearently Jonathan Zasloff is ignorant about the naturalistic nature of many religious philosophies and doctrine.

        You know nothing of the kind. Zasloff leveled no criticism at any religion for being insufficiently "naturalistic," whatever that's supposed to mean. Again, instead of responding to what he actually wrote, you're criticizing him for a claim that's a figment of your imagination. Shame on you.


        Some of the foremost environmentalistis in Asia ... find a philosophical and siritual basis for environmentalism in these religions which stress our origins in nature and the virture of living in harmony with it.

        So you selectively claim, yes. But that is utterly irrelevant to Zasloff's comments. What he says has nothing to do with "a philosophical and s[p]iritual basis for environmentalism" or religious conceptions of "our origins in nature and the virture of living in harmony with it." His critique is of something fundamentally different, and I suggest you read what he wrote again so that you can respond to what he actually said, rather than your insulting stereotypes of what critics of religion contend.


        I'll take as many boots on the ground for the cause as I can get and won't reject anyone based on their personal beliefs or motivations, even lawyers and politicians....

        What a crock. You lie about us (lawyers and critics of religion), you smear us, you take no interest in what we are actually saying, and you want us to believe you "won't reject anyone based on their personal beliefs or motivations"? We'd have to be pretty gullible to believe that.

        News flash: Jonathan Zasloff has not "reject[ed] anyone," whether "based on their personal beliefs or motivations" or on any other basis. If you could see past your thick layers of religious privilege and just read his actual comments, you might see that.


        Again, the level of unthinking hostility toward openly irreligious people being shown in this comment section is depressing. Zasloff has voiced an extremely mild critique of (one abstruse characteristic of) religion--and yet several commenters, reading straight from "Disgusting Atheist Stereotypes, Book 1," have all but decided he's declared his intention to burn their temple down.

        Honest intellectual discourse--which Zasloff is at least trying to conduct--doesn't look like that.

        •  How did I miss this? (0+ / 0-)

          Clue: First and last paragrpahs are SNARCs.

          I'm also a critic of religions, an objective and informed not emmotional and reflexive one. I know some birds have feathers and quack, too. Does that make me a duck?

          What a crock. You lie about us (lawyers and critics of religion), you smear us, you take no interest in what we are actually saying, and you want us to believe you "won't reject anyone based on their personal beliefs or motivations"? We'd have to be pretty gullible to believe that.

          Wretched excess. You really ought to get your bood pressure checked.

          Smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear.

          OK, there is your quota for the day.  Enjoy!

          Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

          by koNko on Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 12:47:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site