In the US, the fact that about a third of the country is evangelical, tends to skew our thinking on this (on a worldwide average the percentage of evangelicals is about half that). Some liberal Christian denominations are environmentally friendly so to speak. None that I’m aware of are environmentally hostile. The worst you could say is they fail to adequately address the issue.
There’s a post-Christian Unitarian-Universalist congregation here locally that breeds the sort of environmental activist that chains themselves to the gates of mines or factories to try to shut down or impede their operation. It’s a badge of honor with those folks, how many times they’ve been arrested in such endeavors.
(The UU organization is the result of the merger of the Unitarian and Universalist denominations in 1960. On paper, at least, they are “non-creedal” and accept even atheists as members, which is heretical per the historic creeds – although I understand that in the deep South of the US, true acceptance of unbelief is only lip service).
And what about conservative and Fundamentalist Christians? I worked with someone who was absolutely sure that climate change was a hoax to destroy the US economy. And she also maintained that “what’s his name” election was stolen.
I’m not sure you fully read my posts. My point was that yes, fundagelicals are climate deniers for the most part, but the fact that they are a third of the US population (about twice as many as the worldwide average) plus influential beyond their actual numbers, tends to make us forget that the liberal Christians aren’t really contributing to this problem.
Christianity is responsible for a lot of fuckeries, but I will not hang climate denialism on Christianity writ large. There’s plenty of room within Christian dogma to talk about being “good stewards” of the environment, etc.
Of course when it comes to how those fundamentalists are impacting the environment and economy and government in the US, I certainly do unload on them for that.
3 Likes
Sam Harris has commented on ‘religious moderation’, saying yes its better than religious fundamentalism. The problem is the cover religious moderates/liberals give to fundamentalism. To a large degree they can be blamed for people like MTG and “what’s his name” being in office. That they aren’t able to stop them from making the USA a “Christian nation” again.
If the foundation is solid, and good, it doesn’t matter how ‘radical’ or ‘literal’ one gets. For example, the more radical a Jain gets, the LESS we have to worry. That is because non-violence is the basis for that religion. Compassion and kindness is the basis. Christians think that they also have that as the basis, but I don’t see that, as god requires violence, and pain as payment for sins.
To some degree Jainism has environmentalism as a concern, as it is violence to harm so many beings, either directly, or indirectly by poisons
1 Like
I don’t disagree, although, the reaction of many liberal Christians is not unlike moderate / liberal Muslims in the US. They are largely professional / upper-middle class, certainly not radical, and they tend to say, what would you have me do, issue a statement decrying Islamic fundamentalism every day of my life?
I suppose in an ideal world what I’d have them (and liberal Christians) do is disavow a faith which, as you say, has a fundamentally controlling, even violent actual basis, whereby liberal adherents are kindly in spite of, rather than because, of it. But then I’d be a controlling asshole like the fundamentalists. People can only do what they are ready and able to do. I try to focus more on the ones who can’t live and let live, and that ain’t liberal Christians or Muslims.
1 Like
Hi! That is a good point to make.
Many people supported Hitler and the Nazis out of fear of Bolshevism, it’s a form of a false dichotomy people often use when they reason poorly. “Better the devil you know” kind of reasoning, and then of course there are “lies for Jesus”, I think we have all encountered apologists using this rationale, it’s not hard to imagine some people lie to themselves as well.
If this life is an infinitesimally miniscule hop to an eternity in the hereafter, then of course it diminishes this life, how can it not.
2 Likes