The Return of the Old Gods — A Challenge to Green Evangelicals

This is a great article. It gets into much deeper issues then just the Global warming controversy. I hope you will read it.

American Thinker: The Return of the Old Gods: A Challenge to Green Evangelicals

So what we have witnessed in the Global Warming debate is a perfect storm of anti-Christian philosophies parading as science. Materialists, Socialists, and Left-leaning types found common cause with neo-pagans and anti-Christian spirituality to advocate a New World Order dressed as a movement to save the planet. A friendly media has nurtured and supported it, and it has advanced through a string of sacraments; separating trash, installing low wattage light bulbs, driving hybrid vehicles, etc. Environmentalism is in all of the schools, and children are being frightened by end-of-the-world scenarios by the prophets of doom while having the Green ethos inculcated in them through letter-writing campaigns and “Earth friendly” checklists. The Environmentalists, heavily financed by left-wing think tanks and environmental-activist organizations, are hurrying to push through Draconian emission standards and to stifle any debate-and that debate is plentiful, indeed.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share

One thought on “The Return of the Old Gods — A Challenge to Green Evangelicals

  1. Great article, I fully agree. And one of the best I’ve read in a long time because it also provides numerous links to media that dare to speak up against Gore’s convenient lie. Many of the things I examined myself when I was working on part of the report for college on renewable energy have been mentioned in this article, e.g. the role the sun is likely playing in global warming and several other factors like the role of water vapor and clouds we hardly know anything about. It’s also particularly interesting because it’s one of the few well documented articles I read that argues against the ever-increasing mixing of environmentalism and Evangelicalism.

    I also learned a few new things – e.g. I didn’t know Roosevelt was into conservationism and supported responsible natural resources management. I’ve personally always felt the same about it. I’m not the kind of person that would go for a hike and waste my garbage along the road or in the woods but I’ve seen many people doing that – including those buying into the convenient lie. And I’m not the person to deliberately hurt or kill animals for no real reason. Hey, and that from a Conservative person – isn’t that an oxymoron? Not at all! I see nature as an asset, a gift from God, something we can enjoy in many ways, including by making use of it. It is, however, an asset we must manage carefully and we are supposed to make use of it primarily in order to support human life. Why treat it carefully? Because the way we make use of nature and its resources may affect the life of human beings directly or indirectly.

    But with today’s ‘conservationists’ or environmentalists, a human life seems not to be worth more than that of some endagered species because all species are somehow interconnected and, hey, after all man’s just an ape without a tail, right? Anyway, there’s nothing wrong with loving nature as long as you don’t start idolizing it and realize God is the Creator and Designer of all that exists.

    Green Evangelicals are undoubtedly in agreement with the above but they go too far when they say nature must in all cases be protected from human interference and when they argue industrialization (to support human life!) ultimately ‘destroys’ nature. They and other environmentalists would like an Africa with savannahs and jungles with people living ‘harmoniously’ with nature but without economic progress that would involve the ‘destruction‘ of the idolized African landscape and wildlife according to them. But how are they going to get Black Africa out of poverty when rejecting Industrialization? True, industrialization may have some negative side effects but since the 19th Century there’s a lot more ways and technology to support industrialization without seriously having to cause a heck of a lot of pollution. There’s, for instance, recycling, which allows us to reuse materials and thus preserve some parts of nature. But oh yeah, I forgot Co2 is more polluting than is toxic waste and black carbon… So I’m sorry poor Africans, we cannot allow you to run a factory on oil and set up power plants and emit Co2 just so you can have electricity to cook instead of having to burn wood. And nuclear energy is not an option either! As if solar and wind energy are enough to provide factories the electricity they need…

    Rather, they somehow want poor Africans to get out of poverty without allowing them to make use of the supplies of natural resources found on the continent. They want no market, no ‘evil consumerism’ and ‘greedy Capitalism’. As a result, Africans will never get out of poverty even if they get rid of local military dictatorships and ethnic conflicts. Next thing they’re gonna face and overcome is a global environmentalist dictatorship so they can go back to square 1 and give thanks to Gaia. And Al Gore.

Comments are closed.