[image from Sundance]
“Pray,” the latest episode of Sundance’s 14-week series called The Green, is, as you might guess, about the intersections between religion and environmental awareness. Luckily, it’s not about sitting on our hands and praying for a deus ex machina solution to our global warming problem.
However, the episode really just gives out basic environmental advice and showcases eco-efforts around the US — the only difference being that the people featured happened to be religious.
We see people opt for green burials in “reef balls.” A woman activist battles against coal companies destroying her town. A man talks about recycling to young kids and screens An Inconvenient Truth for adults. All of these are great eco actions — but they aren’t necessarily religious actions in and of themselves.
And in fact I find it a bit sad that some need to believe “It’s what god wants” to do any of these things. A few religious people featured talk about how environmentalism might be just the thing to unite different religious groups; my first thought’s that if it weren’t for all this religious splitting in the first place….
Still, whatever helps, I guess. There’s perhaps no other place than a church where people will willingly sit still for hours listening to long winded lectures — even doom and gloom messages. And in fact, the consequences of global warming perhaps serve as a perfect metaphor for hell and damnation….
“Pray” airs on the Sundance channel tonight, Tuesday, July 10, at 9 pm. Don’t have cable? You can download the episodes via iTunes.
With the exception of the apocalyptic nutsos, most people value the environment….. and modern environmentalism really started as a religious movement (Ooh, Siel! Put Thoreau on your green-reading list!!!).
Once upon a time, the most religious people in America were also the most liberal. But someone convinced them that it was more pious to crucify gays and unwed mothers than to feed the hungry. But it’s nice to see that after decades of slumber, the religious-left is still out there.
Comment by Rafi — July 10, 2007 @ 10:12 am
Yeah, but let’s not make our generalizations too sweeping. Even though you say “the religious-left is still out there,” you’re also embracing and perpetuating the idea that “the most religious” people in America opt for crucifying gays and unwed mothers instead of feeding the hungry. Come on, man, let’s all get along!
Comment by eric — July 10, 2007 @ 11:05 am
I’m not saying most religious people. I’m just saying that most conspicuous face of American religion is about as ugly, hate-filled, and dangerous as religious terrorists in the middle east.
Conspicious, not representative.
But I agree with you. I don’t see why greens only try to work with conventional “liberal” organizations. We could make a lot of progress if we reach out to the religious right, to gun rights people, the pro-life movement, the property-rights folks (especially them), etc.
Comment by Rafi — July 10, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
Ya, the reflexive anti-religion stance that so many on the left take is rather self-destructive. The message it conveys to a lot of religious people is that they’re not welcome in liberal circles and we end up with a self-perpetuating slide into conservatism among religious folk. As a Catholic liberal (which is not the same thing as a liberal Catholic, I’m often forced to point out), I’ve watched as the body Catholic has been pushed to the right on many issues in which it should not be and in fact, Catholic laity end up being more politically conservative than most clergy and the hierarchy (it’s worth noting that the Catholic bishops in the US have long been proponents of universal healthcare, environmental protection, humane treatment of illegal immigrants, protection of the poor and homeless, to just begin the laundry list of positions which the Catholic church has staked out which are traditionally liberal). But people on the left and the right both have succeeded in making abortion the single issue on which all other political stances must be hinged and as a consequence, what was once the most reliably Democratic-voting constituency in the United States has been largely shifted to the Republicans.
Comment by Don Hosek — July 10, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
Stop fighting over religon it is stupid thing to fight over
Comment by simon — July 11, 2007 @ 3:25 am
They’re not really fighting here, more like discussing — but if you’re referring to the wars around the world, I think you’re gonna have to speak louder.
Comment by Siel — July 11, 2007 @ 9:00 am
As a Christian involved in social justice, and 100% inspired by my faith to do so, I think it’s interesting your take on the God-motive for eco/social activism. I’m not sure why you think “It’s what God wants” is a sad reason to do something. Is any of the other reasons people get involved better (I know I can think of a lot worse)? The God-motive I think provides a very stable base of action to work from, it’s unchanging in it’s clarity and has a clear foundation in it’s direction and what it wants to achieve and why (at least for me). I find it confusing that other people are less able/willing to voice their motivation for their involvement in these issues apart from a sort of “it’s the right thing to do” which, while I wouldn’t say makes me feel sad, thinks isn’t as sustainable a reason as God.
Comment by Devon — July 16, 2007 @ 1:50 am
What I’m saying is I don’t understand why it takes belief in a higher power to take action against something that’s so scientifically obvious (global warming), or something that’s, say, killing people (genocide, economic injustice, global warming). I don’t need “god as stable base of action” to be willing / voice my concerns against killing people and destroying nature. A belief in god isn’t necessary to care about things beyond the self.
Sure, I suppose a belief can be “stable,” in the sense that any singleminded dogma can be stable. But that doesn’t make it desirable or necessary.
Besides, the “It’s what God wants” motive is something that can be applied to anything. Invade Iraq — it’s what god wants — sort of thing. It’s an extremely illogical “reason” that can be used to “support” any cause one chooses.
Comment by Siel — July 16, 2007 @ 8:55 am
A belief in God certainly isn’t necessary to care about things beyond one’s self sorry if my comment suggested that. If you don’t use God as your base I’d be interested in knowing why/your justification for your action.
However, in terms of the rationality of motives I would say the God-motive is perhaps one of the most rational for concern beyond the self. In the whole ‘ultimate standards’ kinda of way – that is God provides a ultimate standard from which good and evil derive meaning.
Whereas global warming is scientifically obvious and it is clear that genocide is occurring and economies are not just – deciding whether this is good or evil and what priority it therefore take, if God is excluded, comes down to personal decisions. It is obvious to me, that genocide is an evil thing and should be stopped (though even here obviously some people would disagree, ie. the people committing genocide). It is obvious to me that reckless exploitation of the environment is an evil thing (God gave it to us to take care of not just exploit), however if a nonbeliever was to decide that their environment was merely there for their exploitation/enjoyment it won’t matter how ‘scientifically obvious’ the damage is if they don’t care.
I’m trying to compress a lot of thoughts into a comment-sized comment so forgive me if the above is not very clear.
In regards to your last point, any motive any be applied to anything. eg. Invade Iraq – it’s obvious they need liberating. Relying on how any one person or group of people personally feels is an extremely illogical reason to do something that can be used to support any cause one chooses. To say that people use the God-motive to support bad causes doesn’t invalidate it as a good motive.
Let me know if I’m being a bit long winded or offensive in any of what I’ve typed. I honestly find it very interesting investigating motivations behind activism. Trying to convince people to switch to fairtrade I’ve found the Biblical arguments easier to make – even if they were a harder sell given the staunch conservatism of most Christian churches in Australia. :)
Comment by Devon — July 17, 2007 @ 2:31 am
The “ultimate standard” I take to mean some kind of reason and stability in the way one tries to make meaning out of life. I totally agree that a choice to believe in a god often helps create this meaning (illusion?) for people in what can seem a meaningless, pointless thing (life). However, the fact that a belief provides comfort — and perhaps a basis for other beliefs — doesn’t actually make it true.
What I’m saying is that the vast majority of people know that human life is precious — due to empathy, etc. It doesn’t take “god” to believe that.
And certainly, religious people who say they believe in god have often been the very people who’ve used said belief as a direct reason for killing and hurting others. The god-motive as “the most rational concern” has been one of the most irrational concerns for exploitation of others.
If you believe, as you wrote, that any motive can be applied to anything, I really don’t see why you then argue the god motive to be superior.
Comment by Siel — July 17, 2007 @ 8:40 am
I’m not talking about the trueness of a belief in God, I’m talking about what motives people have for doing ‘good’ things. The problem being that it would seem that everyone has their own standard of ‘good’. I’m trying to respond to your original post – that you thought it was sad that people needed/used the God-motive. I’m guessing from your comment that you think a ‘better’ motive would be the innate knowledge that “the vast majority of people” have that human life is precious. While I agree that appealing to a person’s empathy is one of the better ways of getting them to do ‘good things’, in practice I find many people who’s empathy is severely lacking and just won’t care about fair trade or global warming or genocide – and i’m not talking about sociopaths just regular uni students. And God provides a great answer to the “why should I care” question. Once again, I’m not saying a belief in God is required to believe human life is precious – however I do think it gives a logical/rational foundation for it.
In relation to your last two sentences, firstly, what I meant to say in regards to applying motives to anything is that any motive can be twisted to be applied to anything. For example, people can say God wants them to kill someone and go and do it, or people can say I believe that human life/freedom is precious and that Suddam Hussein was killing people therefore we should invade Iraq to protect human life/freedom. Both of those are misapplications of a motive, but don’t make the underlying belief untrue – and both can be succesfully argued against. The point I was trying to make was in response to your use of religious people doing bad things using God as a motive. Just as using the “vast majority” argument and empathy can be perverted so can the God motive.
I hope what I am saying is clear, I’m having trouble being succinct. But in a nutshell: I’m just surprised why you think it is sad that people are inspired by God to do good. I find it encouraging when people are inspired by their God given empathy to help others and even more so when they are motivated directly by God to do good things. I’m also very interested in the reasons nonbelievers take the time to do good – I’m not trying to insult anyone or suggest that it is only believers who can do good, this is obviously not the case. Knowing my reasons for being involved, it’s fascinating learning everyone else’s too.
Comment by Devon — July 18, 2007 @ 3:31 am
Devon — I too feel empathy’s highly lacking in a lot of people; unlike you, I haven’t seen people with a belief in god exhibit increased empathy. And I don’t see a logical / rational foundation for things like, say, virgin birth, or how a belief in that’s necessary to make the world a better place.
It’s sad that people NEED to believe god wants them to do good things to do them, instead of being motivated to treat other people kindly sans a “command” from a higher power. As an analogy, I think it’s sad that some people may only be held back from violent crime due to the threat of jail, as opposed to just not wanting to commit violent crimes to begin with. That doesn’t mean I think it’s okay to do away with punishment for violent crimes right now, or that I’m not glad the threat of punishment might prevent some violent crimes; it just means the threat of hellfire and brimstone should not be necessary — and usually are not necessary — to goad people into acting kindly towards others.
This string’s getting extremely repetitive and wasting time — I’m not sure how to keep arguing with someone who believes a belief in god is logical and rational; a lot of religious people I know will state they’re taking a leap of faith beyond logic, even if they like it on the other side — so I’m closing off the comments.
Comment by Siel — July 18, 2007 @ 8:55 am