Red herrings, strawmen, and fake Catholic environmentalism

I’ve been looking at some supposedly Catholic environmentalist programs and posts (I may mention specific ones later), and it is interesting most of their time is spent knocking environmentalism and environmentalists in general (or the author’s stereotypes of such) and certain very rare strands of environmentalists in particular that they assume to be the dominant strands (like “human hater environmentalists,” who, let’s face it, are busy committing suicide, being the very being they detest so much, so they are really not all that much of a problem).  Much less of the program time or post space, if any at all, is spent in inspiring people to concrete environmental actions that can reduce harms and save lives, and that time and space mostly involves promoting an appreciation for the beauties of nature — conceived of as something beyond the fringes of our human civilization, and certainly NOT the air we breathe, water we drink, food we eat, chemicals that permeate our largest organ (our skin), materials with which we build our homes and products, and the climate in which we survive, thrive, and grow our food.

It’s like instead these Catholic “environmentalists” are giving their audience — which is certainly not the human-hater environmentalists, but mostly non-environmentally oriented Catholics (e.g., those who watch EWTN) — a reason not to do much to help the environment, but with a smug reassurance that they are quite superior in their belief system and philosophy to those #%#$@# environmentalists (‘cuse my French).

The comparable done with anti-abortion folks would go like this (addressed mainly to Catholics):  Catholic anti-abortionists are far superior to those non-Catholic anti-abortionists, who are surely going to hell for not being Catholic.   Their religious and philosophical takes on abortion — whether it be Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, or Neo-Pagan — are all cock-eyed and wrong, because their concept of God and man and the Eucharist are so non-Catholic, no matter how many women they may help to avoid having an abortion.  Not to mention even Catholic anti-abortionists plus all those others are a bunch of (or have a tendency to become) baby-worshippers, when only God should be worshipped.  So if you don’t happen to be anti-abortion or involved in anti-abortion activities, just feel very proud you are a Catholic.  Afterall the abortion issue is really not that bad, so you don’t have to be concerned about it much.  Just go out and hug some baby or look at a pretty picture of one, and that will do just fine.

‘Cuse my hyperbole!


2 Responses to “Red herrings, strawmen, and fake Catholic environmentalism”

  1. Bob Synk Says:

    Even way back in 1976 when I first started voting I realized that the Republicans who said they were pro-life really were not pro-life by Catholic standards. You cannot be pro-life if you support policies that make it harder for women to choose life. So I have been voting Democratic all these years. Lately I have been referring to the Republican Party as the Anti-values-of-Jesus party. Especially now that it is critical for future generations that we convert to clean, renewable energy, I cannot find any Republicans that follow Jesus better than their Democratic rivals. It is sad that the pro-choice movement holds so much power over the Democratic Party. There are pro-life Democrats who I support when I can, as well as the organization Democrats for Life of America.

    • lynnvinc Says:

      I’m totally with you in your thoughts and actions. I was reared a staunch Republican, but by the time I was able to vote it was the 1972 election. I wasn’t registered in 1968, but would have voted for Nixon. However by 1972 I voted for McGovern, mainly due to the Watergate scandal and my “liberalization.” It’s ironic that history has shown us now that Nixon was one of the best environmental presidents (in addition to Teddy R, another Republican) — mainly because the time was ripe, and later, more environmentally-minded presidents confronted big issues that blocked them from doing the EC (environmentally correct) things. The jury is still out on Obama; I think he only looks more environmental, because the alternative now it so atrocious and far to the anti-environmental side. Let’s see what he does about unregulated toxic fracking fluids and their harms and the Keystone XL pipeline, etc.

      The 1976 election was interesting, because there was a third candidate — Ellen McCormack, a Democrat who was anti-abortion. I remember going around getting signatures so she could be on the ballot. Ultimately I voted for Carter, since she didn’t have a chance, and I felt that Democratic policies would better help women choose life more than Republican policies, esp since I felt Republican politicians at that time weren’t really into fighting against abortion — they just wanted to garner votes from the social conservatives and the pro-abortion issue at that time was largely about women dying from illegal abortions (and there was a huge and powerful feminist indignation about that).

      Also as a young woman in the late 1960s, I knew full well that women around me were going for illegal abortions, some nearly bleeding to death. Simply making abortion illegal is not a great solution, tho the state now has much better spying power and perhaps could reduce illegal abortions if there were made illegal. Let’s see what happens in Texas. I live in the Rio Grande Valley, and I think the hospitality business here will boom as women come down here to cross the border for abortions; we already have lots of retired “winter Texans” here that cross for cheap dental care and pharmaceuticals.

      Of course, in these times the issue is abortion of life on earth thru (my) environmental harms (which includes foeticide, birth defects, and sterility thru environmental harms) — which is more a personal sin issue for me, since I’m past child-bearing age and never had an abortion. There is a risk that global warming could annihilate most of life on earth, including most human life, and I don’t want to be a part of that or vote for candidates who refuse to accept that could happen and refuse to do anything about it.

      I’ve been reading some snide remarks against religious people and orgs that take on environmental and environmental justice issues that keep harping “why don’t they work against abortion instead (or fight against the contraceptive insurance mandate).” It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, and it is quite doable to reduce killing and harming people and others of God’s creation by reducing environmental harms (and striving to get others to do likewise) and at the same time work to reduce medical elective abortions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: