A tenet of Judeo-Christian religion, as I understand it as a former
Catholic, is that of a hierarchical world in which man answers to God, and
life on earth answers to man. Nature is to be conquered, to be restrained
and to be controlled by man. Nature is there for man's benefit. A
reverence or respect for the earth is not necessary. Undue reverence may
even be blasphemy. (Also see Joseph Campbell.)
Other religions, including that of Native American as I understand them,
have an interdependent view of man and nature. They are not at odds but
live, exist, and struggle together with nature as interdependent beings on
a shared planet. They are mutual expressions of God's design. This is
perhaps a more egalitarian perspective. To not treat nature with respect is
seen as rude or perhaps as blasphemy.
If we see God's work in man alone that leads to one kind of behavior. If we
see God's work in both man and nature that lead to different kinds of
behavior. I would prefer that we live in a society in which its' religions
support and reinforce its own survival. Since I think we need a robust
natural environment to survive and flourish as a species, I would prefer a
Judeo-Christian ethic that respects the environment rather than tries to
dominate it. Therefore, I would prefer to see the environment from both
economic and religious perspectives. Further, I would prefer that we create
the incentives to make it pay to recycle, the same way we have structured
the property rights so that it does not pay to do so to date.
Personally, I see myself as an
atheist-Taoist-humanist-Unitarian-Universalist. I do not have a need
currently to use "God" to derive my respect for nature. It makes sense to
me to do so directly.
The American Transcendental movement of Emerson and Thoreau was an attempt
to see God in nature, man in nature, and man in God. Perhaps this is a way
for Christians and non-Christians to incorporate nature back into a Western
religious and humanist traditions.
Steve Cooke
Hi Jo --
Of course there are higher values than capitalism. That's why I'm a
Christian (and my neighbor's a Jew, and the family down the street is
Moslem, etc. etc. etc.) It's just that recycling, in and of itself,
ain't one of 'em. Rather, shouldn't be -- my point was that nowadays
it is. E.g. the vehement responses I get whenever I bring up this
subject -- I'd call that religious fervor, wouldn't you?
I don't know about the Republican PARTY, at least in its current
incarnation, but one of my "Republican values" is indeed thrift. The
more I reduce and reuse, the less I have to recycle &/or throw away,
and that makes sense in my pocketbook. And yes, I'm in favor of
litter-free streets (I don't remember the littered roads of the
sixties, by the way. Hint, hint.)
RECYCLING, that is: bundling the newspapers and loading them into my
car and burning the fossil fuels necessary to take them down the the
recycling center and putting them in the right bin -- THAT is what
should be cost-effective or else, in my humble opinion, it is a grand
waste of time. Friends can disagree on this!
As for Nancy-forwarding-for-David: if you understand what I'm saying
here, write again. If not . . . well, you'll probably write again
anyway.
Best wishes,
Briana
---Jo Williams wrote:
>
> Briana,
> Have to admit, Amazing Grace is a bit much. But let me ask you this;
> Does everything have to be cost effective? This country practices
> capitalism, but our country wasn't founded on and doesn't guarantee
any
> one economic system. There are some things that aren't cost
effective;
> like saving/recycling finite resources (in case we ever really need
them
> for emergencies.....).
> When I take my cans/papers into Moscow's recycling center, I don't
do it
> for the bucks, and the center wasn't started on that ideal- have you
> forgotten the littered highways, roads, city streets of the early
sixties
> and seventies.... sure, breaking even and making a profit would be
nice,
> but there are other things in life besides profits-- thought that
was one
> of the main messages of the Republican Party; old fashioned
values-- like
> savings/thrift??
> Russia had to admit to the failure of their excessive
interpretations of
> communism; sometimes I think we need to examine the 'success' of
> capitalism- and the values we trade for it. Jo Williams
>
>
==
:-) Briana
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com