Green evangelicals 1 anti-Green evangelicals 0

[Thorgrim]

Cizik has, for 26 years, been the Washington-based lobbyist for the National Association of Evangelicals

Why would Dobson, arguably the most powerful evangelical in politics, care about the statements of a tree hugger? Beltway evangelicals have a few ideas. First, Cizik has started to publicly embrace solutions to the environmental crisis more commonly associated with the left than the right. In other words, he's thought to be a Democratic sympathizer, and in an election season, displays of evangelical unity are critical. Second, and related, Cizik gives the impression in the press that evangelicals are divided in their priorities, an impression picked up with relish by the national media and disputed by some insiders.

But Dobson's Lear-like fury may have backfired. Some prominent religious leaders refused to sign the letter, saying they found it un-Christian. "I didn't feel," says Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, "that it was the most productive, most redemptive way to address the problem." Leith Anderson, NAE president, says his mail last week was "overwhelmingly supportive of Rich." Cizik himself is smart enough to seize the moment and position himself as a martyr. "It's time we return to being people known for our love and care of the earth and our fellow human beings," he wrote in remarks he planned to give at the NAE board meeting last week. Score one for the tree hugger.
BeliefWatch: Evangelical Split Over Environment - Newsweek Beliefs - MSNBC.com


Great news, there has been a rise in the pro-science evangelicals, if you mix that with pro-life democrats, you have a solid voting bloc of environmentalists that will unbalance everything...imagine pro-environmentalist evangelicals picking Edwards over the multiple divorced, affair-ridden, socially liberal GOPers...talk about game over (its already over anyway, but I'm in for the landslide)

[ballz2wallz]

Cizik is old news. He's been written about as 'pro-environment' for the past couple years now.

Interestingly, why is it that Christians are automatically against the environment? What exactly do you think it means when the God commands Christians to be 'stewards of the earth'? Do I need to explain to you what a 'steward' is?

[RMNIXON]

If you can't back up your science it's all about "consensus" as truth and the recruitment of believers. And the louder they are the better. I don't think much of lobbists in general.

If you want a shocker it would be the number of scientists who belong a religion and no doubt many of them back global warming to one degree or another. What does faith or lack of it have to do with what is or is not happening and the evidence for causation? Nothing!

[Diamond Cross]

Faith plays a large part in it when a person has little to no hard evidence to back their stance or belief up and will not listen to anyt other possible solution.

And I'm not referring to religious belief here, but those who believe in something without hard evidence to back it up.

For example, UFO believers. Even though they number in the millions, they have extremely little hard evidence to back their beliefs up. I believe the saying is "since there's no proof it MUST be so".

Scientific consensus comes when the science is sound. Remember:

a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

[grembert]

Many of our great scientists were men of faith. The two human characterisics are not " mutually exclusive "

[lew]

In boundless love as a environmentalist...I am fighting for the work of Mother Earth - Adolf Hitler