Saturday, May 21, 2005
The Big Myth And Bill Moyers
James Watt (most famously misquoted by Bill Moyers) writes this column in the Washington Post to protest the continued distortion of his congressional testimony and its use to misrepresent the views of some religious denominations. First, the distortions:
But the same tactic of inventing quotes continues on in this wing of the environmentalist movement. The Commons Blog reports about Jared Diamond's use of an unattributed quote in a new book:
Last December Moyers received an environmental award from Harvard University. About three paragraphs into the speech, after attacking the Bush administration, Moyers said: "James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, 'After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.'James Watt points out that he never said that at all, and the implied belief totally misrepresents the views of Christians. He then addresses Barbara R. Rossing:
A liberal theologian and active participant in the National Council of Churches, Barbara R. Rossing of the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, published a book titled "The Rapture Exposed." In it she attacks a large segment of the Christian community after attributing to me erroneous motives and beliefs on the basis of a fragment of a sentence taken out of context. Rossing contends that Christians who believe in the Rapture presume that there is no need for stewardship of natural resources because of the expected return of the Lord. She writes: "Watt told U.S. senators that we are living at the brink of the end-times and implied that this justifies clear-cutting the nation's forest and other unsustainable environmental policies. When he was asked about preserving the environment for future generations, Watt told his Senate confirmation hearing, 'I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns.' Watt's 'use it or lose it' view of the world's resources is a perspective shared by the Rapture proponents."As Watt observes, this is an extreme distortion. The whole sentence in his testimony was "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." But Watt did not get any satisfaction when he asked for a retraction from the theologians, although Bill Moyer has retracted his statements:
Rather, the charges have escalated. On Feb. 14, the National Council of Churches issued a statement "in an effort to refute" what NCC theologians "call a 'false gospel' . . . and to reject teachings that suggest humans are 'called' to exploit the Earth without care for how our behavior impacts the rest of God's creation. . . . This false gospel still finds its proud preachers and continues to capture its adherents among emboldened political leaders and policymakers."But this nonsense has shown up all over. Powerline had earlier posted about a retraction by the Washington Post on the mythical quote:
If such a body of belief exists, I would totally reject it, as would all of my friends. When asked who believed such error, where adherents to this "false gospel" might be found, the NCC turned to its theological sources, Moyers and a magazine called Grist, which had also apologized to me. I then contacted the chairman of the NCC task force and asked him about the "some people" who believe this false gospel and the "proud preachers" advancing this false gospel. He could not name such persons.
A Feb. 6 story incorrectly quoted James G. Watt, interior secretary under President Ronald Reagan, as telling Congress in 1981: After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back. Although that statement has been widely attributed to Watt, there is no historical record that he made it.Bill Moyers is a complete fanatic about fundamentalist Christianity. Here on Stuart Wilde you can read one of his efforts, adapted from the Harvard address (and it too contains the James Watt lies), quoted from 'Grist':
Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.Given the fact that this is a made-up quotation, I find Moyer's first sentence an interesting indictment of his own positions, which he claims are based on his long experience and reporting about people who believe in the Rapture. Editor And Publisher reported on the controversy, and noted who had and had not retracted. It also notes that Moyer apologized for using the made-up quote, but justified it on the basis that he had read it all over in newspapers! Layers of fact-checking vindicated again, eh? Moyers also goes on to insist that he is really right anyway:
Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first Secretary of the Interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony, he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."
"You and I differ strongly about your record as Secretary of Interior," the letter continued. "I found your policies abysmally at odds with what I understand as a Christian to be our obligation to be stewards of the earth. I found it baffling, when in our conversation of today, you were unaware of how some fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible influence political attitudes toward the environment."Fake but accurate rears its ugly head again. In 2003 Grist published an interview with Moyers in which he made similar charges, charges with the Grist interviewer said he had not encountered before (it was made up in the 80's and promptly debunked):
Q: Can you elaborate on their religious and political dogma?and:
A: They are practically the same. Their god is the market -- every human problem, every human need, will be solved by the market. Their dogma is the literal reading of the creation story in Genesis where humans are to have "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the Earth, and over every creeping thing ..." The administration has married that conservative dogma of the religious right to the corporate ethos of profits at any price. And the result is the politics of exploitation with a religious impulse.
Q: I'm interested in your explanation of why -- I haven't heard this dogma-based argument before. More often, critics interpret the White House environmental agenda as political pragmatism, as simply an effort to stay in power and pay back corporate contributors.It seems to me as if Moyers is reporting on his own story here. In 2005 many readers responded with letters to Glen Scherer's article including the bogus Watt quote and blaming Christians for environmental disaster. Here is the basic thesis from the article:
A: This is stealth war on the environment in the name of ideology. But you're right -- there is a very powerful political process at work here, too.
Many Christian fundamentalists feel that concern for the future of our planet is irrelevant, because it has no future. They believe we are living in the End Time, when the son of God will return, the righteous will enter heaven, and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire. They may also believe, along with millions of other Christian fundamentalists, that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed -- even hastened -- as a sign of the coming Apocalypse.One of the most interesting letters responding was from a person who works in the field and says he shares the same concerns, but questions the quote attributed to James Watt. He closes:
This is not necessarily to say that the religious beliefs of some powerful individuals and groups today aren't a threat to environmental protections. But to respond effectively we need historical facts, not mistaken assumptions that may obstruct a full understanding of the real roots of the problem. It may be that, by widening the rift between environmentalists and evangelicals, the misrepresentation of Watt's views helped to create the cultural climate that has allowed such extreme anti-environmental religious views to flourish.I have never yet heard a church claim that environmentalism is anti-Christian, or any church member claim that. I do know many people who think the popular belief that we are causing all global warming is ridiculous, but most of them are scientists or engaged in technical professions. Church members dislike the terrorist wing of environmentalism (i.e. ELF), but most people do.
Peter Bakken
Research Fellow and Coordinator of Outreach
Au Sable Institute of Environmental Studies
But the same tactic of inventing quotes continues on in this wing of the environmentalist movement. The Commons Blog reports about Jared Diamond's use of an unattributed quote in a new book:
All of this is prologue for considering what is likely an equally spurious quotation, if not in fact a fabrication, that appears in the pages of Jared Diamond’s new best-seller Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. In a particularly frothy passage on page 462 attacking mining companies, Diamond writes: “Civilization as we know it would be impossible without oil, farm food, wood, or books, but oil executives, farmers, loggers, and book publishers nevertheless don’t cling to that quasi-religious fundamentalism of mine executives: ‘God put those metals there for the benefit of mankind, to be mined.’”And yes, this quote to has now shown up in the main-stream press - Science magazine, in fact. Yes, that's the same magazine that has been accused of deliberately refusing to publish scientific rebuttals of global warming theories:
The “mine executive” who supposedly said this is not identified, nor the name of her company. (There are no footnotes or source notes for this quote, or any other in the book.) It is not clear from Diamond’s prose whether this is meant to be a verbatim quotation, or a stylized characterization, The doubt about the authenticity of this quote is deepened by the immediate sequel:
"The CEO and most officers of one of the major American mining companies are members of a church that teaches that God will soon arrive on Earth, hence if we can just postpone land reclamation for another 5 or 10 years it will then be irrelevant anyway."
Reviewing Collapse in Science magazine, Tim Flannery writes of “the CEO of an American mining company who believes that ‘God will soon arrive on Earth, hence if we can just postpone land reclamation for another 5 or 10 years it will then be irrelevant anyway.’” Suddenly we’ve gone from executives who attend an unidentified congregation that believes this to an unnamed CEO who “believes” this. The next short step will be directly attributing this non-quotation to the unnamed CEO.Faith-based reporting, anyone? So many people have said it that it must be true? Inaccuracy is inaccuracy for those who believe in truth.
Comments:
<< Home
You know, there probably are yahoos out there who believe that Christ is coming back soon so there's no reason to conserve anything. In fact, there are yahoos out there who believe just about every stupid thing imaginable. I just wish that people on the left and right would stop resorting to extreme examples to make their cases. It isn't necessary. On environmental issues, for example, there are plenty of good, logical arguments on both sides. Too bad Bill Moyers can't stay within the boundaries of logical argument.
Jimmy Swaggert, everybody's favorite Televangelist to hate, said something smart when he said, "When the church is strong politically,it's weak spiritually; when it's strong spiritually it's weak politically." Just goes to prove that an amoral whack jobs can still come up with an idea occasionally. MoM, I think this is a good and vey important post and I thank you for it. I had previously read the entire text of of Moyers acceptance speech for the Harvard award and there, too, despite his bias mucking it up, he was making some important points: That it's hard to report on the significance of the threat to the environment in a way that people will listen to it.
Most good stewards of the earth, whether it comes from the wellspring of their faith or spirit or common sense, know that we are failing. The ELCA of America has written on of the best statements I've read discussing the relation between Christianity and environmental policy: http://www.elca.org/socialstatements/environment/
Sorry for diverting somewhat from the point of your post-it was well written in a way that pushed these particular buttons in me.
Most good stewards of the earth, whether it comes from the wellspring of their faith or spirit or common sense, know that we are failing. The ELCA of America has written on of the best statements I've read discussing the relation between Christianity and environmental policy: http://www.elca.org/socialstatements/environment/
Sorry for diverting somewhat from the point of your post-it was well written in a way that pushed these particular buttons in me.
Vicki - no, I think that pretty much was the point of my post. I have never yet met an American who believed that environmental protection laws weren't necessary. Like Tom says, there must be some out there - but they are few and far between. No one wants to be drinking polluted water.
The real debate in the US is between strategies and measures to protect the environment, not whether to protect the environment. Certainly we all have a stake in this debate.
What surprises me to no end is that we are running off on tangents like this and not looking at what we can do here and now. I think the public is so united on this that they will sign on to any reasonable measures.
The real debate in the US is between strategies and measures to protect the environment, not whether to protect the environment. Certainly we all have a stake in this debate.
What surprises me to no end is that we are running off on tangents like this and not looking at what we can do here and now. I think the public is so united on this that they will sign on to any reasonable measures.
"I have never yet heard a church claim that environmentalism is anti-Christian, or any church member claim that."
Coming from my experiences from my time as an environmental lawyer, a common theme from the right is "but God gave us dominion over the earth." It is a claim I have heard numerous times as to why exploiting the environment is ok. So, yes, I have heard many, many times that environmentalism is anti-christian.
Coming from my experiences from my time as an environmental lawyer, a common theme from the right is "but God gave us dominion over the earth." It is a claim I have heard numerous times as to why exploiting the environment is ok. So, yes, I have heard many, many times that environmentalism is anti-christian.
Not in church, but once by a pastor I was debating who found environmental regulations to be anti-Christian. I also hear that since god loves us, he won't let things get 'too bad' so don't worry so much. These were always some of my favorite arguments. God will clean up toxic waste if we just pray hard enough. I once had a fundie tell me that "God will restock the fish in the ocean once we have caught them all." There is a woman in my office who refuses to ever go to teh museum of natural history because it was "created by satan."
And, by right leaning scientists who are 'of faith.' Roy Spencer, the scientists who is the go to guy for the right to get arguments against global warming believes it is wrong that a deer can crap in a stream, but we can't dump our sewage in one since we have 'dominion.' He also claimed that Christian churches that preached environmentalism were straying from the faith and becoming pagan earth worshipers
And, by right leaning scientists who are 'of faith.' Roy Spencer, the scientists who is the go to guy for the right to get arguments against global warming believes it is wrong that a deer can crap in a stream, but we can't dump our sewage in one since we have 'dominion.' He also claimed that Christian churches that preached environmentalism were straying from the faith and becoming pagan earth worshipers
As a refugee from ECUSA, I have to tell you that some of them are pagan earth-worshippers. It doesn't have anything to do with environmental regs though.
In NY? The woman who wouldn't go to the Museum of Natural History is in NY?
In NY? The woman who wouldn't go to the Museum of Natural History is in NY?
"In NY? The woman who wouldn't go to the Museum of Natural History is in NY?"
yes, she is an attorney.
Post a Comment
yes, she is an attorney.
<< Home