If the spirit moves you (in a fuel-efficient hybrid)
It seems a coalition of evangelical Christian leaders is looking to expanded its repertoire of causes beyond just protecting the pre-born and the pre-divorced to include thwarting global warming, both to care for the planet their kind believes they were entrusted with and its inhabitants whose livelihoods are threatened by changing climate conditions.
Good for them (and good for us if this means we get to see entertaining advertising campaigns–I'm thinking a cartoon instantiation of the Holy Ghost asking people to cut carbon dioxide emissions, saying, "Take it from me: Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it can't wreak vengeance upon you and your entire wayward kind!"), but since when do American evangelicals care about the welfare of their global "neighbors," who starve, die of preventable diseases and kill, rape and maim each other all the time?
And since when do the same people who insist the earth is a few thousand years old, emergency contraception is the devil in a capsule and the Grand Canyon was carved by the biblical flood listen to scientists?
This, of course, is causing a bit of a rift with "traditionalists" in their league who hold global warming either doesn't exist or has nothing to do with humans–and that their priorities shouldn't include saving the earth while there are so many sinners on their own soil to rain righteous, codified disapproval upon. (And so many animated sea creatures to out.)
More importantly, many evangelical political players still waiting to cash in on that 2004 "mandate" they think they delivered Bush are nervous that if some fracture their flock and break with the administration's agenda on such a crucial point, they'll squander any piddling bit of power their contingent commands. (I'm sure lawmakers are just taking their time on that Federal Marriage Amendment–no way was it just an election-time gimmick, for we hear about it so very often.)
Indeed, if evangelicals keep up with this talk about going green, battling AIDS and ending poverty–and then actually act on it or compel others to act on it–if they're not careful, they might accidentally help somebody.
Good for them (and good for us if this means we get to see entertaining advertising campaigns–I'm thinking a cartoon instantiation of the Holy Ghost asking people to cut carbon dioxide emissions, saying, "Take it from me: Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it can't wreak vengeance upon you and your entire wayward kind!"), but since when do American evangelicals care about the welfare of their global "neighbors," who starve, die of preventable diseases and kill, rape and maim each other all the time?
And since when do the same people who insist the earth is a few thousand years old, emergency contraception is the devil in a capsule and the Grand Canyon was carved by the biblical flood listen to scientists?
This, of course, is causing a bit of a rift with "traditionalists" in their league who hold global warming either doesn't exist or has nothing to do with humans–and that their priorities shouldn't include saving the earth while there are so many sinners on their own soil to rain righteous, codified disapproval upon. (And so many animated sea creatures to out.)
More importantly, many evangelical political players still waiting to cash in on that 2004 "mandate" they think they delivered Bush are nervous that if some fracture their flock and break with the administration's agenda on such a crucial point, they'll squander any piddling bit of power their contingent commands. (I'm sure lawmakers are just taking their time on that Federal Marriage Amendment–no way was it just an election-time gimmick, for we hear about it so very often.)
Indeed, if evangelicals keep up with this talk about going green, battling AIDS and ending poverty–and then actually act on it or compel others to act on it–if they're not careful, they might accidentally help somebody.
posted by Holly at 12:35 AM
<< Home