Re: Religious right and global warming
- From: Richard Clayton <pockZIGetnZIGerd@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:43:05 GMT
UC wrote:
On Sep 14, 4:25 pm, Richard Clayton <rich.e.clay...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Sep 14, 2:22 pm, UC <uraniumcommitteechair...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 14, 1:34 pm, Richard Clayton <rich.e.clay...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:I lived in the US southeast for many years. If you don't believe me,On Sep 14, 12:14 pm, UC <uraniumcommitteechair...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:I'm not sure about that.On Sep 14, 12:04 pm, Richard Clayton <rich.e.clay...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:I said it was the "short answer," didn't I? The more complicatedOn Sep 14, 3:08 am, "David Hare-Scott" <comp...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:This statement is a major over-simplification. The "religious right"Quoted from wikipedia under Intelligent DesignShort answer: The religious right is in bed with big business, and
'By May 2006 the Discovery Institute, in a carefully calculated move, sought
to broaden the faltering "teach the controversy" strategy to include
examples of other supposed legitimate scientific controversies. In Ohio and
Michigan where school boards are again reviewing science curricula standards
the Discovery Institute and its allies proposed lesson plans that included
global warming, cloning and stem cell research as further examples of
controversies that are akin to the alleged scientific controversy over
evolution. All four topics are widely accepted by the majority of the
scientific community as legitimate science, and all four are areas where US
political conservatives have been known to be critical of the scientific
consensus.'
Of the four topics I can see why ID, cloning and stem cell research are
issues for the religious right but not global warming. It seems the odd one
out in that it has nothing (to me) to do with protestant religion, morality
or the literal authenticity of the bible.
Was this chosen by the RR just as an example similar to evolution vs
creationism, ie a widely held scientific consensus versus a vocal contrarian
minority?
Is it the case, as this article suggests, that the RR in USA also tend to be
global warming sceptics? If so why?
Is there some other reason for the inclusion of global warming here?
they don't want environmental regulations hurting their profits.
Therefore global warming does not exist, massive deforestation isn't
harmful, and cheap oil will last forever.
are not particularly wealthy. They tend to be of rather modest income,
lacking in education.
answer is that the leading figures of the religious right share common
interests with big business-- but that's a deeper issue than I have
the time or inclination to discuss; several excellent books have been
written on the topic, if you're interested.
You have no idea what you're talking about.That's rich, coming from you.GoYup. And if you sit down in those churches and listen to a few
to southern Ohio or Kentucky, or Arkansas some time and take a look
around. Ignorance and poverty and church-going and anti-evolution
sentiments abound.
sermons, you'll be surprised at how often they rail against
environmentalism.
just drop by an Alabama church on Sunday morning and listen to the
sermon. Not all southern churches are against evolution, of course, or
against environmentalism, but you'll find a very high correspondence
between the two.
Many of the 'poor folks' have been harmed byYou're not kidding. Again, I lived there; you're preaching to the
coal and manufacturing pollution.
choir.
It's not that simple.Do you have an alternate explanation?
Of what? The idea that conservatives and Replicans are religious
(false) anti-science (false; remember Dover?) and anti-environment is
a liberal lie. 'Conservatives' come from a wide variety of
circumstances. I consider myself a conservative in many matters, but I
am a rabid atheist and supporter of science. I do think that the
"global warming" issue is laugably unscientific, because the variation
in temperature on the Earth's surface has varied enormously over
recorded geological time, and we are still coming out of the ice age.
We used to burn wood and coal by the ton in Europe and North America.
Pollution from fossil fuels is much less than it was in the 19th
century. Were you to travel back in time to London in 1855 you would
be appalled.
Apparently you're once again using your own private definitions. If you think that the Dover case was NOT a display of religious, anti-science motivation, then you're not using the words as conventionally understood or defined in any modern dictionary. I have no interest in continuing to converse with such a person.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings." — Optimus Prime
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Religious right and global warming
- From: David Hare-Scott
- Re: Religious right and global warming
- From: Richard Clayton
- Re: Religious right and global warming
- From: UC
- Re: Religious right and global warming
- From: Richard Clayton
- Re: Religious right and global warming
- From: UC
- Re: Religious right and global warming
- From: Richard Clayton
- Re: Religious right and global warming
- From: UC
- Religious right and global warming
- Prev by Date: Re: Religious right and global warming
- Next by Date: Re: Religious right and global warming
- Previous by thread: Re: Religious right and global warming
- Next by thread: Re: Religious right and global warming
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading