Re: Environmentalism as a Religion
- From: "PerfectlyAble" <jrhw@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 2 Jul 2006 12:20:42 -0700
Captain Compassion wrote:
On 2 Jul 2006 11:02:37 -0700, "PerfectlyAble" <jrhw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You can say many things about the Catholic Church but you certainly
Captain Compassion wrote:
On 2 Jul 2006 00:59:11 -0700, "JHM" <jhmccloskey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Urban" is good!Religion is organized belief without empirical proof.
Or at least it would be good if it was accurate.
Even as is, "urban" is kinda funny, funny enough to be getting on
with.
Let's look first at what Dr..Original Intent actually said:
""Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is
environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice
for urban atheists." -- _Environmentalism as a Religion_, Michael
Crichton
Mr. Quoted Authority leaves it up for grabs which religionism, exactly,
is chosen by our noble exurban godmongers. I daresay those bozoes
really _do_ fancy themselves somehow in direct communication with The
TetraGrammaton iTSeLF whenever they hunt their foxes or evict their
tenants, but as that must be a mystical apprehension, as far as I can
make out, they have never quite reduced it all to a theo-system.
On the other hand, perhaps our specifically-Christian Christojudaeanity
was indeed originally more "urban" than "rural" -- lots of books write
it up that way, and it as at least conceivable that our books are not
all wrong? JC Himself does not seem to have been inciting any sort of
peasant revolt against the RomanoSemitic landlords in the Palestine of
His day and if He had any Sierra Club interests, He muzzled them very
admirably. One can scarcely suppose that His "religion of choice" was
environmentalism.
Far be it from me to profess to explain HIMSELF or HIMSELF's intention,
but on the other hand Herr. Prof. Dr. M. Crichton really does seem to
sadly flounderin' and needin' assistance and yet at the same time be
especially and willfully non-assistable, what with _Jurassic Park_ and
all. It is odd, to say the least, that a shameless fictionist who
imagines all the countryside overrun with Thunder Lizards should set up
as a defender of Countryside versus Crawford and Kennebunkport.
The authentic countryside folks have all sorts of legitimate complaints
against Kennebunkport and Crawford and the joke-Godlike Bushevik
Dynasty, I doubt not, but has that factor really interfered with their
local and regional religionism? Peasant types _always_ complain about
etiolated and ineffectual GOP types, which Pontius Pilatus could tell
you along with a million other indig authorities.
Specifically-Christian Christojudaeanity formerly recommended itself to
me with the slogan "For thee, Christ died". It never crossed my then
unsuspicious mind thirty years ago that HIMSELF might have died somehow
at the margin more for us urbans than for them rurals, or maybe
vice-versa like some Herr Prof. Dr. M. Crichton woud be pleased to
suggest later for anti-Environment ideological purposes. Oh how naive
I used to be, back when I took the formula to mean something childish
like all of JC dying to save all of us mortals and did not appreciate
that only a few parts of JC actually died and only a few parts of "us"
derived any benefit from Himself's scrappily dying.
Time has past, one has learned, maybe, and nowadays Dr. Rown Williams
and his Lambeth gang are only a "them," not an "us," for Mr. McCloskey.
_Mais je me souviens_! Wingnut City and Rio Limbaugh and all the
barbarian inasion fans will never be quite _perfectly_ safe until
eveybody who notices how they abuse the very terms they thunder in is
out of the way.
Meanwhile, "Environmentalism as a Religion"? What weirdo neo-nonsense
rightism is _that_? If relgionism has any merit all, and after all it
probably does, considering all the inarticulate popular support, then
"Environmentalism as a Religion" is not just a Wingnut City whim, but a
militant factional nonsense. If Superstition and Enthusiam,
"religionism" when both these lofty Hume abstractions are taken
together, dos not consist mostly of thumbing one's nose at "the
environment," I at a very sad loss to guess what religionizing _does_
consist it. Abstractly speaking. I can imagine some idolatrous wingnut
or "conservative" "intellectual " kneelin' humbly down to worship the
_status quo_ and make an "Environment" religionism out of his kneelin'
down, but as for actually doin' anything like that myself personally,
kindly include me out!
Most, and perhaps indeed even _all_, serious neo-religionization in WC
circles does not try to be somehow best buddies witht the landscape.
The real thing that that actually happens is more like bein'
temporarily infested with a plague of militant Moonies at the airport.
One would have to be WAY way out in far right neo-field to rebut that
militamt religionists at airports simply _are_ "the airport
environment."
Religion is disorganised wishful thinking claiming itself collective
fact.
can't say that they are disorganized.
Wishful thinking. LOL
Don't you just love the rightwing, in an sentance they can claimMost religions don't claim fact they claim truth. You know the
both expertise of a subject and ignorance of it.
difference don't you?
Wishful thinking makes fact and truth interchangable.
--
"Science is the record of dead religions." -- Oscar Wilde
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Dick Cheney
- Next by Date: Re: # Oh deary me .....
- Previous by thread: Re: Did Bush commit war crimes? Sure he did.
- Next by thread: Research Study on Women's Thoughts
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
