Ok, I admit its a bit of a setup.
I left off some info.

The recommendations occurred in 2000 while the political heat from the church in WACO Texas was cooling off (So to speak) and didn't want any further political turmoil.

Interestingly, I've mentioned that exact same way to some Bush haters I know and they automatically blast this administration and go off on some diabolical evil concocted Republican plan.

Sorry to put you through that as well, probably shouldn't have.
But was glad not to see it here.

 

Yeh, there's no point saying "IT'S THE REPUBLICANS" or "IT'S THE DEMOCRATS" or whatever... Really they are the same bunch of punks, sure they have different positions on wedge issues, but take a look at the core and it's clear they get their marching orders from the same secret societies. They also play different roles when it comes to conflict and war, there's no way the Republicans would have let the Democrats get away with such a sloppy scam.

Jim Marrs, an investigative journalist and author from Ft. Worth on 9/11 http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2004/04/103788.wmv

 

I want to minimize injecting any controversey other than creating this thread.

I agree with the Christians in the Newsweek article that people should take good care of the Earth. I think other faiths and quite a few non-spiritual people would concurr on environmental responsibility.

I'm ashamed of some Christians that seem to think the Earth can be abused and will simply recover from anything. To think those beliefs (on the environment) are authentic is like thinking Osuma bin Laden speaks for a majority of Muslims.

There was a campaign a couple of years ago "Would Jesus Drive an SUV?" Whatever your beliefs, I think the answer is he obviously would not.

 

They have Republicans in Canada?

 

Yes, unfortunately... Their party is called The New Conservative Party, formerly The Reform Party.

 

I fit the description of environmentally conscious evangelical Christian as well. I think Allen Johnson's statement fits my position to a tee: "My identity is not as an environmentalist," he says. "It's as a Christian. Because I am Christian, I should be involved with social justice, the poor, the needy. Environmentalism is one thing in my circle, but it's not my center."

No party has the market on the environment, yet there is a difference as to how central the issue is to life. Many activist make environmental issues the prime importance, just as many Evangelical Christian stress social issues like abortion, homosexuality, religious freedom, etc. I tend to believe that the majority favor a balance that also includes the economic success of our nation, knowing that only when the immediate life sustaining needs (and for too many of us ... "wants") are met do we then have the luxury of caring about the future which includes the environment. Look at any impoverished area ... caring for the environment down on the list from food, disease and shelter. We've got to take care to balance our environmental approach that does not overly hinder our nations economy, otherwise any 'forced' gains will eventually be lost if the economy suffers, IMHO.

 

Environmentalism can certainly have a personal viewpoint, as well as a moral grounding. To that extent, adherents of different religions will weigh in, and rightly so.

The problem occurs when religion tries to ignore the scientific side of environmentalism; or even worse, answer scientific questions as if they were religous questions. Then you end up with idiocy and infamy, of the sort the republican party and christian church is famous for.

 

Some would say that the economy will eventually suffer if we fail to treat the environment with respect in search of short-term economic success. That's not to say that the economy does not matter, but rather that the economy depends on the environment. A lack of care for the environment (thinking we are in control of it, rather than a part of it) is already stressing out the economy and it's not going to get better until we learn to balance economic activity with the ecology of the planet. So far we've been 'forcing' economic gains at the expense of the environment, placing a huge debt onto future generations that will have to deal with the mess we've left behind. Things are changing, people are more aware of the environmental impact of our industrial society... but it's a slow process.

 

Progress is progress ... keep the pressure on and the positive attitude that we each can make a difference. My point is 'balance' ... where that is seems to be a sticky issue.

 

You're right, of course. Generalizing or making any sort of opinion on a person or a people, as it were, isn't healthy when it isn't grounded in study and actual experience both. Having lived in only 7 countries across only 3 continents literally residing in the same house as people from every major religion and numerous denominations and sects within those, I am a bit ashamed to generalize when there's still more I want to see. But I have a better ground for my observations than most.