27 July 2005

Priorities PLEASE!

Dany made a good point, and one that I did not mean to disagree with in yesterday’s post. Of course most “mainstream Christians” do not share the crazy beliefs of the “End Timers”. In fact most of the world’s religions acknowledge the need for humans to take care of our environment. The problem here is a question of priorities. Conservative politicians know that they will get ALL of the mainstream Christian vote purely on issues like abortion and gay marriage and stem cell research, and that they will not lose those votes by supporting anti-environmental policy. Furthermore they can actually gain the “crazy Christian” vote by inventing religious excuses for their support instead of admitting the greedy economic reasons that really motivate them.


So the question becomes priority. Personally I don’t care for many of the social policies supported by liberal candidates, but I find myself forced to vote for them because my priorities dictate following the candidates that will try to help the environment. For me, this is not so hard since I don’t have to compromise on the moral issues above (right or wrong, I think the government should stay out of them). I’m sure it would be much harder if I strongly opposed the legality of one of them (and I refuse to let this turn into a moral debate of those issues!), but I don’t think it’s an excuse for mainstream Christians to ignore this problem. The way I see it, they have three choices:

  1. Vote differently. This is the only real power anyone has over government. It seems small and inconsequential, but the crazies are proving that it can make a difference. For some people this means compromising on other issues, but I think that keeping the planet livable should be priority #1.
  2. Write nasty letters weekly, even daily. Again, it’s all about the votes…if politicians think they are going to lose their votes over something they don’t really care about, they will change their tune quick. It’s worth at try.
  3. BOTH #1 and 2.

Maybe I’m asking too much, but it’s the only solution I see.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

It really comes down to ethics. Does a healthy environment deserve protection and ethical consideration. And by ethics I use the definition of self restraint when it comes to using resources. I'll try to find my stuff on the tragedy of the commons for my blog.