For the Sake of Our Children

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. writes:

They claim to embrace Christianity while violating the manifold mandates of Christianity: that we are stewards of the land, and that we are meant to care for nature. They have embraced this Christian heresy of dominion theology, which James Watt was the first to enunciate when he told the Senate, I don't think that there is any point in protecting the public lands because we don't how long the world is going to last before the Lord returns. The woman he mentored for twenty years, Gale Norton, is running the Department of the Interior.
----
The reason that we protect nature is because it enriches us. It enriches us economically, yes, the base of our economy, and we ignore that at our peril. But it also enriches us aesthetically and recreationally, culturally and historically, and spiritually. Human beings have other appetites besides money, and if we don't feed them we're not going to become the kind of beings that our Creator intended. When we destroy nature we impoverish ourselves, we diminish ourselves and we impoverish our children.
----
I don't believe that nature is God or that we ought to be worshiping it as God, but I do believe that it's the way that God talks to us most clearly. God talks to human beings through many vectors: through each other, through organized religion, through the great books of those religions, through wise people, through art, literature, music and poetry - but nowhere with such clarity, texture, grace and joy as through Creation. We don't know Michelangelo by looking at his biography, we know him by looking at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. We know our Creator best by studying Creation, which all of the religious texts mandate us to do. If you look at all of the great, central epiphany in every religious tradition in mankind's history, the revelation always occurs in the wilderness. Buddha had to go into the wilderness to experience self-realization. Mohamed had to go to the wilderness of Mount Hira in 629 and wrestle an angel in the middle of the night to have the Koran squeezed out of him. Moses had to go onto the wilderness of Mount Sinai to get the Commandments. The Jews had to spend 40 years in the wilderness to purge themselves of the 400 years of slavery in Egypt. Christ had to spend 40 days in the wilderness to discover his divinity. His mentor was John the Baptist, a man of the wilderness who lived in a cave in the Jordan Valley and dressed in the skins of wild animals. All of Christ's parables are taken from nature: I am the vine; you are the branch; The Mustard Seed; the little swallows the scattering, the seeds on fallow ground. He called himself a fisherman, a farmer, a vineyard keeper, a shepherd. That's how he stayed in touch with the people. He was saying things to them that contradicted everything that they had heard from the literate, sophisticated people of their time. They would have dismissed him as a quack but they were able to confirm the wisdom of his parables about the fishes and the birds through their own observations of the natural world. They were able to say: He's not telling us something new, he's simply illuminating something that's very, very old.
----
When we destroy these things, we're cutting ourselves off from the very things that make us human, that give us a spiritual life. And for these people on Capitol Hill to be saying that they are following the mandate of Christ by liquidating our public assets, what they are really doing is a moral affront to the next generation. That's why we preserve nature. Not for our sake, but for the sake of the future. That obligation is expressed by the term sustainability. All that word means is that God wants us to use the things we've been given, to enrich ourselves, to improve our quality of life, to serve others - but we can't use them up. We can't sell the farm piece by piece in order to pay for the groceries; we can't drain the pond to catch the fish. We can't cut down the mountain to get at the coal. We can live off the interest; we can't go into the capital that belongs to our children.

Comments

[alt hippo]

I'm always glad to hear from RFK, Jr. He's one of the voices of sanity in this time.

It's also important to point out that the James Watt quote he references is probably not accurate. RFK, Jr is quoting Bill Moyers, who is quoting Grist. Grist has recently published this retraction:

"In fact, Watt did not make such a statement to Congress. The quotation is attributed to Watt in the book 'Setting the Captives Free' by Austin Miles, but Miles does not write that it was made before Congress. Grist regrets this reporting error and is aggressively looking into the accuracy of this quotation."

I don't want to detract from the theme of your post, or from what RFK, Jr is saying, which is so brilliantly put, and is so close to my own viewpoint.

[YetAnotherRick]

I'll try to post a more calm answer later today, but right now I'm really frustrated that even when someone tries to correct something, they don't even get it quite right. The fact is that the alleged statement is simply a complete fabrication, and what Watt actually said was *precisely* the opposite. I just get furious when liberals, who obviously believe they're so much smarter than stupid right-wingers like Watt prove themselves to be gullible - I'm referring to Grist and Moyers.

[Streak]

YetanotherRick falls into the same trap that Patrick, PTA and Chameleon do--bashing liberals as a coherent group. If we are wrong about Watt, then correct us. Can you not tell that that quote sticks because it is what we fear from the right wing? We fear that they are so convinced that God is coming back soon that there is no need to be concerned about the environment?

[YetAnotherRick]

"YetanotherRick falls into the same trap that Patrick, PTA and Chameleon do--bashing liberals as a coherent group."

Streak, you seem to be making a mistake similar to what you claim I'm making. Guilt by association doesn't make for an effective argument. I addressed a specific situation and two specific targets, not liberals as a coherent group.

"If we are wrong about Watt, then correct us."

alt hippo already made a partial correction, and I said I'd come back with more. So here I am.

"Can you not tell that that quote sticks because it is what we fear from the right wing? We fear that they are so convinced that God is coming back soon that there is no need to be concerned about the environment?"

Of course I understood that! Addressing that false fear is precisely the whole point of my response. I've just been really frustrated lately by the sheer volume of misconceptions about non-liberal Christians. I don't care if nonsense comes from the left or right. It's just plain wrong.

Now to the good stuff...what Watt actually said:

*** begin quote ***
Mr. Weaver: I am very pleased to hear that. Then I will make one final statement... I believe very strongly that we should not, for example, use up all the oil that took nature a billion years to make in one century.

We ought to leave a few drops of it for our children, their children. They are going to need it... I wonder if you agree, also, in the general statement that we should leave some of our resources--I am now talking about scenic areas or preservation, but scenic resources for our children? Not just gobble them up all at once?

Secretary Watt: Absolutely. That is the delicate balance the Secretary of the Interior must have, to be steward for the natural resources for this generation as well as future generations.

I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns, whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations.
*** end quote ***

This and more detail is in a couple of my Usenet posts which can be found on Google Groups here:

http://tinyurl.com/7yrkc

Or, you could go to alt.radio.talk.dr-laura and look for the Feb 13 thread called "BILL MOYERS WHACKS BIBLE THUMPERS." I post just as Rick there.

[Carlos]

Thanks to alt hippo and YetAnotherRick for correcting the misinformation.

[Streak]

To be fair Rick, you said that liberals thought they were smarter than everyone else. That seems rather bashing in my mind.

The correction on Watt adds some context. It doesn't, in my mind, completely change his perspective. He is still inserting this eschatology into our public policy, which is part of the concern we all have.

Your concern about non-liberal Christians is well noted. Just remember, many of us are on this blog because we have been excoriated for years for being liberal and/or had our faith questioned repeatedly (as in, you can't be liberal and a Christian). Hell, Chameleon has told me I can't really be a christian. So, given that, and I understand it doesn't excuse mischaracterizing conservative Christians, I am not as apologetic as I probably should be.

[Saheli]

RFK JR.'s point remains, with or without the Watt quote.

[Jeff Keezel]

"I just get furious when liberals, who obviously believe they're so much smarter than stupid right-wingers like Watt prove themselves to be gullible - I'm referring to Grist and Moyers."

Do you get furious when conservatives misquote liberals? Did you get furious about "invented the internet"? Did you get furious about "discovered Love Canal"? Did you get furious about "who among us does not love Nascar"?

Why do you get furious about a simple misquote? The theology inherent in the quote is part and parcel of the new base of the republican party. Yet putting these words in Watts' mouth is labeled a smear, an attempt to portray him a religious nut. Is that how you feel about the party base? Kooks, nuts, insane?

What are you so angry about? Why all this fury?...thekeez