NationStates Jolt Archive

A New York Times article says that evangelical groups (mainly the National Evangelical Association) are drafting policy to show support for emmision standards.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/07/politics/07air.html?emc=eta1

I think this is great because I'm an Evangelical and an Environmentalist and I'm glad to see that other evangelicals are willing to seperate from the Bush administration on certain issues. Good to see some who take the be good stewards of the earth teachings seriously.

cool. maybe people will realize that we do have brains and are not just blind followers of the administration. (some are, but most of us aren't)

Now, Christians can't have their government trashing God's gift to man. :)

Now, Christians can't have their government trashing God's gift to man. :)

You know, I'm still trying to think of one thing the Bush misadministration has done to thank the evangelicals for support they have given him. It's been five years of "Thank you for your brain dead support, now be quiet while I bow down to my Corporate Masters."

Bah. I'm ready for real Republicans, not Capitalist-Republicans.

A New York Times article says that evangelical groups (mainly the National Evangelical Association) are drafting policy to show support for emmision standards.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/07/politics/07air.html?emc=eta1

I think this is great because I'm an Evangelical and an Environmentalist and I'm glad to see that other evangelicals are willing to separate from the Bush administration on certain issues. Good to see some who take the be good stewards of the earth teachings seriously.
FINALLY! I've been preaching "stewardship" to fundamentalists for literally years and years now. I get really incensed when some refer to "subduing the earth." The earth has been subdued already! It's high time for some responsible stewardship.

You know, I'm still trying to think of one thing the Bush misadministration has done to thank the evangelicals for support they have given him. It's been five years of "Thank you for your brain dead support, now be quiet while I bow down to my Corporate Masters."

Bah. I'm ready for real Republicans, not Capitalist-Republicans.
Ditto.

This is good news. I hope the new emissions standards to get made into law down there. Perhaps it will encourage the politicians up here to get off their asses and do something good for the environment too.

You know, I'm still trying to think of one thing the Bush misadministration has done to thank the evangelicals for support they have given him. It's been five years of "Thank you for your brain dead support, now be quiet while I bow down to my Corporate Masters."

Bah. I'm ready for real Republicans, not Capitalist-Republicans.

In other threads I've described Bush's domestic policy as "Corporate Theocracy" - the unholy (I mean that literally) alliance between corporate greed and fundamentalist ignorance. The ultimate consequence of this policy is that, in the end, the corporation will become god. "Greater profits for the glory of God!" And since the environment gets in the way of profits, the environment is therefore the Devil's playground.

The funny thing is, you can't get past the first chapter of Genesis without a strong environmentalist message. How many times does it say that God saw that His creation was good? How many times does this message have to be repeated before the thought occurs to biblical literalists, "Hey, maybe this means that the earth is actually good!" Apparantly, at least one more time.

:rolleyes:

FINALLY! I've been preaching "stewardship" to fundamentalists for literally years and years now. I get really incensed when some refer to "subduing the earth." The earth has been subdued already! It's high time for some responsible stewardship.

There are already right-wing environmentalist groups like the Izaac Walton League, but they never get any press.

There are already right-wing environmentalist groups like the Izaac Walton League, but they never get any press.
Didn't know that. Thanks for the info, I'll have to look them up. :)

http://www.iwla.org/

I've been a member most of my life. We lobby state government, do river cleanups, plant trees, teach children about the outdoors, and embrace the ideas of stewardship and conservation.

But, the Sierra Club gets far more press.

http://www.iwla.org/

I've been a member most of my life. We lobby state government, do river cleanups, plant trees, teach children about the outdoors, and embrace the ideas of stewardship and conservation.

But, the Sierra Club gets far more press.
Kewl! I'll check 'em out. :)

Love your nation's name, BTW. :D

If they do separate from the Republicans, where will they go? They will most certainly not join the democrats, and they probably lack the popular support to form their own party.

Unless something changes in the near future, I cannot see a large evangeleical voter block leaving the republicans.

I read this article this morning and couldn't help but laugh when I read this bit:Mr. Inhofe has led efforts to keep mandatory controls on greenhouse gases out of any emission reduction bill considered by his committee and has called human activities contributing to global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

"You can always find in Scriptures a passage to misquote for almost anything," Mr. Inhofe said in an interview, dismissing the position of Mr. Cizik's association as "something very strange."

Mr. Inhofe said the vast majority of the nation's evangelical groups would oppose global warming legislation as inconsistent with a conservative agenda that also includes opposition to abortion rights and gay rights. He said the National Evangelical Association had been "led down a liberal path" by environmentalists and others who have convinced the group that issues like poverty and the environment are worth their efforts.

Because Jesus was all over the capital gains tax and never said anything about helping the poor, right? Between Inhofe and Coburn, I think that Oklahoma wins the "Worst Pair of Senators" award running away.

I read this article this morning and couldn't help but laugh when I read this bit:

"Mr. Inhofe said the vast majority of the nation's evangelical groups would oppose global warming legislation as inconsistent with a conservative agenda that also includes opposition to abortion rights and gay rights. He said the National Evangelical Association had been "led down a liberal path" by environmentalists and others who have convinced the group that issues like poverty and the environment are worth their efforts."

SIGH! :headbang:

FINALLY! I've been preaching "stewardship" to fundamentalists for literally years and years now. I get really incensed when some refer to "subduing the earth." The earth has been subdued already! It's high time for some responsible stewardship.

I find it odd that I am agreeing with you rather enthusiastically in this.

What I do in my real life, or amongst the things is that I am a director on it's Board in a cave/karst conservancy that owns some and protects several other caves that harbor the endangered Indiana bat. Good stewardship is very important. Likewise, protecting our groundwater.There are threats to caves and karst all over this country. The trans modal park issue in Kentucky and I-69 here in Indiana immediately spring to my mind. In your area, I'm sure there are environmental issues as well. Get involved.

http://www.stoptranspark.org/
http://www.commonsensei-69.org/

I read this article this morning and couldn't help but laugh when I read this bit:

Because Jesus was all over the capital gains tax and never said anything about helping the poor, right? Between Inhofe and Coburn, I think that Oklahoma wins the "Worst Pair of Senators" award running away.
being from Oklahoma, I have to say I think I know a little bit more about these men than you do, and it is absolutly unfair to compare Coburn to Inhofe.

I can fully understand why you don't like Inhofe, but what exactly is everyone's problem with Coburn? He said what he would do when he ran for congress, and we voted for him and now he is doing it. That sounds like a pretty good representative to me, you know representing the voice of the people who voted for him and all.

being from Oklahoma, I have to say I think I know a little bit more about these men than you do, and it is absolutly unfair to compare Coburn to Inhofe.

I can fully understand why you don't like Inhofe, but what exactly is everyone's problem with Coburn? He said what he would do when he ran for congress, and we voted for him and now he is doing it. That sounds like a pretty good representative to me, you know representing the voice of the people who voted for him and all.Where should I start? With the fact that he admitted to sterilizing a woman against her will? With his belief that lesbianism is so rampant in southeast Oklahoma that schools were only allowing one girl at a time to go to the toilet? Or maybe that this past weekend that he claimed on Meet the Press that he can tell when a person is lying simply based on body language? He's certifiable.

I'll give Coburn this much credit, however--he sponsored a bill in the Senate a couple of weeks ago that would have taken some pork from the highway bill and put it toward the Katrina rebuilding. He gets applause for that, even though it went crashing down to defeat, but he's still a nut.

Where should I start? With the fact that he admitted to sterilizing a woman against her will? With his belief that lesbianism is so rampant in southeast Oklahoma that schools were only allowing one girl at a time to go to the toilet? Or maybe that this past weekend that he claimed on Meet the Press that he can tell when a person is lying simply based on body language? He's certifiable.

I'll give Coburn this much credit, however--he sponsored a bill in the Senate a couple of weeks ago that would have taken some pork from the highway bill and put it toward the Katrina rebuilding. He gets applause for that, even though it went crashing down to defeat, but he's still a nut.
I don't really care too much about his nutty-ness. I care more about his resolve to actually represent his voters rather than just say he will and then get into office and not do anything.

I have met him, he isn't really too nutty, he just hasn't figured out how to think before he speaks. (we all have that problem sometimes)

I don't really care too much about his nutty-ness. I care more about his resolve to actually represent his voters rather than just say he will and then get into office and not do anything.

I have met him, he isn't really too nutty, he just hasn't figured out how to think before he speaks. (we all have that problem sometimes)
I agree--but when I speak before I think, the result isn't conspiracy theories about lesbians taking over high schools (oh, that it were--I could make a mint, perhaps :D). And that still doesn't excuse his sterilization of a woman without her permission--that smacks of misogyny to me.

I agree--but when I speak before I think, the result isn't conspiracy theories about lesbians taking over high schools (oh, that it were--I could make a mint, perhaps :D). And that still doesn't excuse his sterilization of a woman without her permission--that smacks of misogyny to me.
yeah, I didn't like the whole sterilization thing either, but in Oklahoma all we have are nutty politicians, at least we have an honest(maybe too honest with his inner thoughts) congressman for once.

If they do separate from the Republicans, where will they go? They will most certainly not join the democrats, and they probably lack the popular support to form their own party.

Unless something changes in the near future, I cannot see a large evangeleical voter block leaving the republicans.

No, I didn't mean actually leave the Republicans. I was just saying they were asserting themselves instead of just bowing down to the ulta-Capitalist half of the Republican party.

Now a lot of evangelicals simply accept the whole Republican platform. But a very large portion (possibly the majority) actually tend to be quite progressive on several issues. The Bible teaches such tings as environmentalism and aid to the poor. It's just that many of them would rather vote for a pro-life anti-environmentalism canidate over a pro-choice pro-enivronmentalism canidate, while the prefered canidate might be pro-life and pro-environmentalism.

As another poster pointed out already. The whole alliance between corporate greed and evangelical Christianity makes no sense. Since Christianity teaches giving your money to the poor and that Rich men have difficulty getting into heaven.