Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 08:49:26 -0600
Subject: (QUERY) "Muscular" Mormonism
From: DavidOrr@aol.com
It's interesting to me that Mormons especially prize Scouting, almost as an adjunct to their religious doctrine, yet seem to have such low regard for nature. I'm personally interested in this subject and would appreciate knowing from others who may share my curiosity.
David Orr
Gentile Environmentalist
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:40:04 -0600
Subject: Re: (QUERY) "Muscular" Mormonism
From: philip terrie <pterrie@bgnet.bgsu.edu>
I find this comment on Mormons to be an odd remark. Most Mormons I have known have been avid fans of outdoor recreation--backpacking, skiiing, canoing, etc. Is my experience unrepresentative? I realize that an interest in outdoor recreation is not the same thing as "regard for nature," but it's certainly related. Note also that Terry Tempest Williams, author of Refuge, one of the most popular examples of nature writing of recent years, is a Mormon (or at least she was when she wrote the book: I don't know what religion, if any, she adheres to now). In any case, I don't think it's wise to generalize about groups of people.
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 17:02:49 -0600
Subject: on Mormons
From: DavidOrr@aol.com
Hi,
I think you missed the point of my comment. It's not that Mormons aren't fans of outdoor recreation, they are - for example, scouting. That's why I raised the question! The question is, since they're such avid fans of outdoor recreation, why are they such aggressive opponents of protecting Nature?
David Orr
In regard to the issue of "Muscular" Mormonism, Scouting, and environmentalism; I wonder if the popularity of Scouting among Mormons (I presume this is so) is due more to a Mormon approach to social activity and engaging in efforts that benefit the larger (Mormon?) society, rather than some inherent Mormon doctrine of environmentalism. A few years back I interviewed several Mormon Elders while researching water management in the western states. I had asked these Elders if Mormon doctrine, in general, or the Book of Mormon, in particular, specified a particular approach to water management or environmental management. After doing some research for me (pro bono) the gentlemen were unable to cite any specific text, but generalized on a Mormon belief in reaping abundance and prosperity from the soil. Adding to this the documentation on Mormon cooperation in agricultural efforts, and irrigation in particular, I tend to think that Mormonism tends towards social ends.
For more information on this, I suggest looking at the dissertation of Joanna L. Endter 1987 "Cultural ideologies and the political economy of water in the U.S. West: Northern Ute Indians and rural Mormons in the Uintah Basin, Utah." University of California, Irvine. Last I heard, Dr. Endter (now Endter-Wada) was at Utah State, Logan, Department of Natural Resources (?)
R. Evan Fulton
refulton@mtu.edu
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 10:34:47 -0500
Subject: Re: "Muscular" Mormonism
From: philip terrie <pterrie@bgnet.bgsu.edu>
I don't think I missed the point at all. Indeed, I think you missed my point. What I am objecting to is blanket generalizations like "they [Mormons are] such aggressive opponents of protecting Nature." In my view Mormons are no more loathe to protect Nature than Methodists, baseball players, heterosexuals, or any other culturally constituted groups of people are. Most Americans, we would probably agree, fail to live their lives in a way that respects Nature. Mormons, as such, are no more or less subject to this failure than the rest of us are. Perhaps you are confusing the views of Mormons with the views of the Representatives and Senators from Utah, who recently displayed a singular indifference to protecting BLM lands in their state. According to my reading, many, many Utahns, perhaps a majority, perhaps even including some Mormons, objected to the way they were being represented in Congress on this issue.
**Editor's note:**
It appears that what this discussion needs is a few statistics to back up
the anecdotal evidence. Can anyone cite any poll data, membership rates (for
Scouting or environmental & outdoor organizations), etc. for Utah that might
shed some light on Mormons as a group and nature? I, for one, would be
interested in info about comparative religious attitudes towards nature,
between the various American denominations.
Mark Stoll
Co-Editor, H-ASEH
St.Edward's University
Austin, Texas 78704
marks@admin.stedwards.edu
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 10:34:49 -0500
Subject: Re: (QUERY) "Muscular" Mormonism
From: RH4754@cnsvax.albany.edu
In response to David Orr's statement...I am not sure what you mean by Mormon low regard for nature. Like so much else in LDS culture, there are contradictions a-many with respect to LDS attitutes toward the environment.
Tom Alexander has written a number of essays on the LDS and the environment including a recent article in the Western Historical Quarterly. Hugh Nibley has an interesting essay on Brigham Young's attitute toward nature in BYU Studies.
Anecdotally, I found a small but healthy environmental movement at BYU while I was a student there. Additionally, Backpaker reported statistics in one of last year's issues that indicated that there are more backpackers per capita in Utah than anywhere else in the US.
Ron Helfrich
Department of History
University at Albany
Albany, NY 12222
rh4754@cnsvax.albany.edu
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:31:34 -0500
Subject: Re: "Muscular" Mormonism
From: Nigel Rothfels <rothfels@csd.uwm.edu>
I have been following with interest the "muscular Mormon environmentalism" issue begin to develop over the last week and have been surprised by both the absence of actual Mormon voices and the relatively scant critique of the relation of Mormon theology and doctrine to the Church's essentially anti-conservationist approach.
It seems to me that there are some issues deriving from Mormon theology--including ideas of a chosen people in a chosen land, a godly people with a spiritual mission on earth, and a belief in the relatively proximate end of the world--which do tend to lead to "use it today to the highest profit" approach to the environmnet.
One last thought (and I say this with care and some not insignificant personal experience of both Utah and Mormonism), at the very best it seems to me wishful thinking to suggest that Terry Tempest Williams represents some sort of Mormon approach to the environment.
To reply to Nigel Rothfels...As I implied in my earlier post, too many people tend to confuse "official" discourse emanating from Salt Lake (SLC) with the Church in general. It seems to me that many from outside the Church assume that when SLC speaks, the laity follow behind in lockstep.
Take a look at Sunstone, a scholarly and popular journal which I believe represents one aspect of contemporary Mormonism.
Terry Tempest Williams represents to me one LDS approach to the environment. Another is represented by Boyd Packer. Mormonism, in sum, is extraordinarilly diverse as a visit to BYU would indicate.
Ron Helfrich
Department of History
University at Albany
Albany, NY 12222
rh4754@cnsvax.albany.edu
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 13:06:38 -0500
Subject: Re: "Muscular" Mormonism
From: Jeffrey Feng <yfeng@whittier.edu>
Nowadays, people in different organizations, be it religious or otherwise, are trying to scourge from ancient theological teachings on environmental conservation. It is happening in Christianity, it is happening in Buddhism, and it is happening in Taoism. Whether or not the ancient sages had foreseen the adverse effects of destroying environment on living organisms on Earth depends on how the contemporary theologians interpret the teachings. It is virtually impossible for the theologians to base their interpretations on tangible evidence.
Therefore, I think we should view the notion that some religions are also environmentally conscious with a pinch of salt.
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:57:03 -0500
Subject: Re: "Muscular" Mormonism
From: Nigel Rothfels <rothfels@csd.uwm.edu>
Ron Helfrich,
I am more than happy to accept your suggestion that there is no one "Mormon" attitude to the environment which is universally shared by the members of the church. I am happy also to point out that high per capita backpacker presence in Utah has rather a good deal more to do with the physical environment of the state that its spiritual environment. Lastly, while I believe that while many Mormons may in fact identify with the ideas T.T. Williams or Emma Lou Thayne, I take their views on the environment to be simply their views.
Because I accept what you have suggested (the obvious diversity of thought within any group of people [and I have, by the way, read a _Sunstone_ or two in my day]), I directed my post specifically to questions about *Church Doctrine*. What I wanted to know was whether Church doctrine suggests any particular orientation to the environment. What I hoped for as a response would not be a careful gleaning of pro-environmental statements from the BofM--statements which would be largely irrelevant to the practice of either the Church, the state, or individual Mormons--but a careful consideration of whether Mormon theology as a body of ideas has a different take on the environment that other Christian or Christian-derived beliefs.
One last thought. Can you honestly say that BYU represents a diversity of beliefs and ideas? That BYU has nurtured an environment where the process of shared inquiry is open-ended and faculty and students have the right, even responsibility, to question the ideas that have been handed down to them? In a place with strict dress codes, moral codes, civil codes, relational codes, aren't you pushing it a bit to talk about BYU as a place of diversity.
Nigel Rothfels
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:57:02 -0500
Subject: Re: "Muscular" Mormonism
From: Randy DeLay <rdelay@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>
Pursuant to this request: Marshall Massey (active on the EcoTheology list) did some research published about 1991 on the main U.S. demnominations and expressed environmental concern. It was published in the journal FIRMAMENT, the now defunct voice of the North American Conference on Christianity and Ecology. He surveyed the denominational organizations for environmental programs, offices and statements. Also connected this loosely to attitude surveys the showed denominational affiliation.
Among Massey's conclusion were that the Church of Latter-Day Saints (LDS - the "mormons") were among the lowest level of environmental involvement in terms of programs and official statements. NOTE: this study was done in the late 1980s. Since then, most Christian denominations have expanded environmental efforts, and connected these to social justice efforts. The LDS are among those that have come out with new statements. I read it some time ago, and was disimpressed by the "stewardship" attitude in it. Compared to other denominations that express more of an intrinsic value approach, or at least a theocentric view (emphasizing the role of God in sustaining and maintaining the earth and the need for humanity to tread very carefully), the Mormon document was very anthropocentric. Stweardship approaches will emphasize the special role of humanity to manage the earth, and in more blatent cases, even imply that a very important purpose of the rest of creation is for human use (Few come straight out and say this - but the implication is accentuated).
Having lived in Southern Utah for several years and long involvement working with churches on environmental issues, I will not generalize. There are definitely enviromentally concerned folks in the LDS, but little theological reflection (at least in comparison to other denominations or traditions).
Grin at life,
Randolph DeLay
Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation
University of Alberta
"Sometimes I want to save the World; sometimes I want to savour the world. It makes it hard to plan the day"
--E.B White (paraphrased!)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 18:02:27 -0500
Subject: Re: "Muscular" Mormonism
From: Chris Hill <chill@alf.uccs.edu>
Having been born and raised as a non-Mormon in Utah, with my B.A. from the University of Utah, I have some personal sense of the church's attitude towards the environment. While Ron Elfrich is absolutely correct in cautioning us to avoid generalizing about the church, I think that there are some areas of agreement among most Mormons.
The first of these, I believe, is that the conquest of nature by the LDS
church is a sign
that Mormons are God's chosen people. They were commanded to "make the
desert bloom," and that is precisely what they did--Salt Lake is a
living testimony to this aspect, plush green laws, thousand of trees,
etc. Another example, told to me by one of the icons of Mormon history,
dealt with the Teton Dam disaster. The town of Rexburg, Idaho, was
inundated by the collapse, but Rex College, the Mormon J.C., which sits
on a hill, was saved. This is widely seen as a miracle, God's
protection of his chosen people, according to the historian.
Finally, we should take into account the use of irrigation, and the socialization of water, land and agriculture, as tools to keep the gentiles out of Utah. For an excellent review of this, see "The Lord's Beavers" in Don Worster's -Rivers of Empire.*
Granted, these are anecdotal, but then so are accounts of Mormons' love of backpacking as proof of environmentalism. From PERSONAL experience, which is hardly methodological, I have found a very "old-testament" view of man's dominion over nature as a view commonly shared by my Mormon friends.
Chris Hill
Department of History
University of Colorado, Colorado Springs
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 20:45:36 -0500
Subject: Re: "Muscular" Mormonism
From: RznDemo@aol.com
In a message dated 96-04-09 14:24:04 EDT, Jeffrey Feng writes:
"Nowadays, people in different organizations, be it religious or otherwise, are trying to scourge from ancient theological teachings on environmental conservation. It is happening in Christianity, it is happening in Buddhism, and it is happening in Taoism. Whether or not the ancient sages had foreseen the adverse effects of destroying environment on living organisms on Earth depends on how the contemporary theologians interpret the teachings. It is virtually impossible for the theologians to base their interpretations on tangible evidence.
Therefore, I think we should view the notion that some religions are also environmentally conscious with a pinch of salt."
This is fine in principle, but there are substantially different core values to different religions, especially evident when one considers attitudes towards nature, which after all is a major entailment of ontology, whether secular or religious.
Taoism, if anything, can be accused of excessive quietism, an anti-technological bias. (I'm more of a Taoist than anything else, perhaps, and don't have such a bias, but it is a fair criticism of a major tendency implicit in Taoism.) Similarly, "Right Livelihood" is a central tenent in Buddhist thought, which has obvious and profound implications, not just pro-environment, but also anti-free market, since one's participation in the market must always be restrained by moral principles.
More fundamentally, both Taosim & Buddhism are, in proper terms, a-theistic religions, compared to the model of Western Theism. By seeing Tao/Consciousness/Self everywhere, they sacralize the world both in-itself and for-itself. This naturally lays a strong foundation for an environmental ethic directly drawn from the nature of things, not merely from an interpretation of a "stewardship ethic" derived from the commandment of a dis-embodied God.
Paul Rosenberg
Reason & Democracy
RznDemo@aol.com
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:18:26 -0500
Subject: Re: "Muscular" Mormonism
From: Jackie Jablonski <jjablon@bgnet.bgsu.edu>
Recent posts seem to indicate that some folks here are confused. The original objection to the statement "Mormons . . . seem to have such low regard for nature" was that it is a generalization, and therefore like all generalizations can be proven false by any single exception--e.g. Terry Tempest Williams. Church doctrine, statistics, and irrigation history do not change that, nor do they excuse careless use of language.
Jackie Jablonski
jjablon@bgnet.bgsu.edu
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 16:51:05 -0500
Subject: Re: "Muscular" Mormonism
From: RH4754@cnsvax.albany.edu
Dear Nigel;
Thanks for your reply. Actually, I do not believe I attributed the
high per capita Utah backpacking rate to any causal force. I simply noted
it
and allowed others to draw their conclusions. As the conclusions drawn
tend to be ideologically inspired I imagine that one could draw several
and never be able to convince. Personally, I would probably attribute
the rate to a number of factors, environmental and ideological among them.
BYU and diversity...While BYU does have dress and grooming standards, standards that trouble some of us, this does not mean that BYU does not represent diversity in the LDS population whether ethnically, politically, ideologically, etc. Personally, I believe it does represent these diversities though I (and I would suggest others) do not have statistical evidence to back up either proposition, namely that the Y is or is not diverse.
Ron Helfrich
rh4754@cnsvax.albany.edu
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 13:43:27 -0500
Subject: Re: "Muscular" Mormonism
From: RH4754@cnsvax.albany.edu
I guess my problem with Massey's statistics is this, it takes the official discourse of the Church as its starting and ending point. It also tends to ignore historical change--is the LDS Church the same now as in 1880, for instance. The Shepherd's analysis of official LDS discourse indicates that it is not.
Sociologically, to fully understand any community one must analyse no sorry not only offical discursive forms but also the multivocal popular ones.
Ron Helfrich
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 13:43:29 -0500
Subject: Re: "Muscular" Mormonism
From: "J. Douglas Deal" <deal@oswego.Oswego.EDU>
It may or may not be relevant to this debate that Utah's congressional reps have put together a bill, the Utah Public Lands Management Act (soon to be voted on) that would open up 20.2 million acres of the Red Rock canyon lands of southern Utah to mining, drilling, and damming (for the extraction of coal, among other things). State opinion polls in Utah seem to show on the other hand that most residents oppose this vast giveaway and are more inclined to back an alternative bill, the Red Rock Wilderness Act (H.R. 1500) that would protect about 5.7 million acres of the red Rock country as true wilderness (the first-named act would "protect" only about 1.8 million acres, opening them to future dams, reservoirs, roads, and communication towers. (All information above taken from a dispatch sent out by the NRDC.)
Doug Deal
History/SUNY-Oswego
Paul;
I guess I would join Don Worster, particularly his essay on John Muir
and the origins of American environmentalism, in wondering whether
"eastern" religions have proved any more environmentally friendly
than "western" ones. To be reductionist for the moment, it seems
to me that religious ideology pales in the face of economic
rationales.
Ron Helfrich
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:35:01 -0500
Subject: Re: "Muscular" Mormonism
From: RznDemo@aol.com
In a message dated 96-04-11 16:53:07 EDT, Ron Helfrich writes:
>Paul;
>I guess I would join Don Worster, particularly his essay on John Muir
>and the origins of American environmentalism, in wondering whether
>"eastern" religions have proved any more environmentally friendly
>than "western" ones. To be reductionist for the moment, it seems
>to me that religious ideology pales in the face of economic
>rationales.
Yes, this is QUITE reductionist. Economics contributes to the overthrow of religious traditions that stand in its way and promotes religious traditions that valorize it. The shift from Catholicism to Protestantism is but one example. Your statement would seem to imply that such changes are of little consequence. But clearly this is not the case.
As for "Eastern" religions vs. "Western" ones -- it all depends WHICH religions. I pointed to the fundamental tenents of two -- Taoism and Buddhism. NEITHER has been a state religion of a major imperial power. China has long been ruled by Confucian ethics, rather than Taoist or Buddhist ones. Japan is Shinto, India Hindu. Even Indonesia, bent on the genocide of East Timor as well as the massive destruction of its forests, is predominantly Moslem.
Of course it's true that ANY religious tradition can be perverted and subverted. But this hardly makes them interchangeable, nothing more than irrelevent pawns of economic forces. Just because any wood can be carved doesn't eliminate the differences between balsa and mahogoney.
Paul Rosenberg
Reason & Democracy
RznDemo@aol.com
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:35:02 -0500
Subject: Re: "Muscular" Mormonism
From: RH4754@cnsvax.albany.edu
Doug;
Of course your post is relevent particularly with respect to an analysis
of rather elite attitudes toward nature in Utah. This raises the question
of whether Utah's congressional delegation is representative of the Utah
public.
Moreover, even if they do "represent" their constituency, I think it is necessary to explore whether Mormons are any more or less "antienvironmental" than Jews, Unitarians, Christian Scientists, Astrologists, Republicans, Democrats...This issue is similar to that of Utah's politics. Some commentators have suggested that Utah is and has become more conservative over the years. While that may be so, it begs the question, one Tom Alexander has raised in a recent review of a book on Utah politics, as to whether Utah is peculiar when viewed against the background of growing Western and American conservativism.
Ron Helfrich
UAlbany
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:36:54 -0500
From: Mark Stoll <marks@admin.stedwards.edu>
Subject: Re: "Muscular" Mormonism
In regard to Mormonism and conservatism, for what it's worth, Laurence Moore makes a rather convincing case the Mormons are conservative BECAUSE they are Mormons, in his book, Religious Outsiders and the Making of Americans (1986).
Mark Stoll
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 12:57:01 -0500
Subject: Re: "Muscular" Mormonism
From: Chris Hill <chill@alf.uccs.edu>
> > Yes, this is QUITE reductionist. Economics contributes to the overthrow of > religious traditions that stand in its way and promotes religious traditions > that valorize it. The shift from Catholicism to Protestantism is but one > example. Your statement would seem to imply that such changes are of little > consequence. But clearly this is not the case. > > As for "Eastern" religions vs. "Western" ones -- it all depends WHICH > religions. I pointed to the fundamental tenents of two -- Taoism and > Buddhism. NEITHER has been a state religion of a major imperial power. > China has long been ruled by Confucian ethics, rather than Taoist or > Buddhist ones. Japan is Shinto, India Hindu. Even Indonesia, bent on the > genocide of East Timor as well as the massive destruction of its forests, is > predominantly Moslem. > > Of course it's true that ANY religious tradition can be perverted and > subverted. But this hardly makes them interchangeable, nothing more than > irrelevent pawns of economic forces. Just because any wood can be carved > doesn't eliminate the differences between balsa and mahogoney. >
> Paul Rosenberg
> Reason & Democracy
> RznDemo@aol.com
>
> "Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"
Professor Rosenberg:
It seems to me that you too are being reductionist. If you are going to reduce your qualifications for Asian religions to those states that are current imperial powers, than you have a point. However Buddhism was the state religion in India in the 3rd Century B.C., and the evidence of environmental degradation is clear (contrary to Ashoka's pillars). A similar case could be made for Buddhism in China (see the work of Yi-Fu Tuan) and in Japan.
Christopher V. Hill
University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 12:56:57 -0500
Subject: Re: "Muscular" Mormonism
From: RznDemo@aol.com
In a message dated 96-04-12 09:48:07 EDT, Ron Helfrich writes:
>Doug;
>Of course your post is relevent particularly with respect to an analysis >of rather elite attitudes toward nature in Utah. This raises the question >of whether Utah's congressional delegation is representative of the Utah >public.
Of course it isn't! Only proportional representation allows for the election of true representatives.
Otherwise, what you get is people elected by a plurality of voters responding to advertisements aimed at first shaping, then addressing "salient issues". One result is a nationwide disjunction between citizen attitudes toward the environment and politicians voting records. This has been well documented over the years. Utah is simply symptomatic in this regard.
>Moreover, even if they do "represent" their constituency, I think it is >necessary to explore whether Mormons are any more or less "anti- >environmental" than Jews, Unitarians, Christian Scientists, >Astrologists, Republicans, Democrats...
Hmmm. I was raised Unitarian. Thoreau, Emerson. Somehow, I think that an upbringing which regards "Walden" as a more or less sacred text is just a wee bit more likely to be pro-environment than an upbrining which is all focused on the afterlife.
As for Republicans and Democrats, while it is certainly true that Republicans as a whole are much more environmentally concerned than the political leadership of their party, there is really no doubt that Democrats as a whole are far more pro-environment.
Of course we need more exploration, but it's not like we don't know anything in advance!
>This issue is similar to that
>of Utah's politics. Some commentators have suggested that Utah is >and has become more conservative over the years. While that may be so, it >begs the question, one Tom Alexander has raised in a recent review of >a book on Utah politics, as to whether Utah is peculiar when viewed >against the background of growing Western and American conservativism. >
"growing Western and American conservativism" is another myth.
The percentage of people calling themselves conservatives was up in 1994 from 1992, but it was the same as the number calling themselves conservatives in 1988. More critically, conservatives voted in much higher percentages than cnetrists and liberals -- a further indication that elite representation offered them something, while more centrists and liberals felt like they really didn't have anything to vote for -- which would not be the case with proportional representation.
A shift in the politics of elite representation does not necessarily indicate a shift in the politics of people in general. Neither does a growing skepticism toward big government, which, after all, recieves most of its impetus from conservative policies and scandals -- Vietnam (yes, I know plenty of Cold War liberals were involved, the kind of folks who are now neo-conservatives) , Watergate, Iran-Contra, the S & L bailout, etc. What's more, the folks (including state & local politicians) fighting Ward Valley and Yucca Mountain are none too happy with big government either!
Others on this list know much more about the core topics than I, so I seldom post. But recently, especially in this thread, popular "truths" have been causually imported into the discussion, and I feel impelled to send up some warning flags.
It's not my intention to divert conversation into the areas I've mentioned in this or any other post. I am not one of those who tries to invade lists willy-nilly to spout his own views. I simply want to warn folks away from unwarranted assumptions which would detract from the generally high level of thoughtfulness on the list.
If I'm succesfull in this attempt, I shall happily return to lurking.
Paul Rosenberg
Reason & Democracy
RznDemo@aol.com
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 20:01:20 -0500 Subject: Religion and the environment
Editor's note: I have changed the subject line, since this thread doesn't
seem to have much to do with Mormonism any more.
Mark Stoll
Co-Editor, H-ASEH
From: RznDemo@aol.com
>Professor Rosenberg:
>
Professor Rosenberg is my sister, not me! I'm an auto-didact working in public policy.
>It seems to me that you too are being reductionist. If you are going
to
>reduce your qualifications for Asian religions
(A) I assume you know you are playing with words here. That's not the meaning of reductionism.
(B) It was not *my* qualifications for Asian religions. I orginally mentioned only Taosim and Buddhism:
>>Taoism, if anything, can be accused of excessive quietism, an >>anti-technological bias. (I'm more of a Taoist than anything else, perhaps, >>and don't have such a bias, but it is a fair criticism of a major tendency >>implicit in Taoism.) Similarly, "Right Livelihood" is a central tenent in >>Buddhist thought, which has obvious and profound implications, not just >>pro-environment, but also anti-free market, since one's participation in the
>>market must always be restrained by moral principles.
went on to note:
>>More fundamentally, both Taosim & Buddhism are, in proper terms, a-theistic >>religions, compared to the model of Western Theism. By seeing >>Tao/Consciousness/Self everywhere, they sacralize the world both in-itself >>and for-itself. This naturally lays a strong foundation for an environmental
>>ethic directly drawn from the nature of things, not merely from an >>interpretation of a "stewardship ethic" derived from the commandment of a >>dis-embodied God.
I beleive this is a sound, not overly broad statement, which in no way presumes a reduction of any sort -- merely a rational basis for observed differences -- NOT absolute differences, but substantial differences nonetheless.
>to those states that are
>current imperial powers, than you have a point.
I made this point in a subsequent post, as a subsidiary example.
>However Buddhism was the
>state religion in India in the 3rd Century B.C., and the evidence of >environmental degradation is clear (contrary to Ashoka's pillars). A >similar case could be made for Buddhism in China (see the work of Yi-Fu >Tuan) and in Japan.
Three points. First, as already noted, I am NOT making a reductionist argument. I have spent much more time in my life decrying the ways that religion is twisted to suit ignoble ends than I shall ever spend defending religious integrity. At the same time, it is quite necessary to note that different belief systems lend themselves differentially to different ends. That was my point. The fact that SOME examples exist throughout a history of 2600 years does not refute this point.
Second, Buddhism, being a-Theistic, as I have already noted, has always been succeptible to vast amounts of syncretic embrodiery. The Tibetan version, with it's monastic hierarchy, is a prominent example. The same, of course, is true of Catholicism, with Voodun being one of the more extreme examples. The salience of the examples cited, even as examples, must be evaluated in light of syncretic influences.
Third, I didn't say that neither had been the state religion when there had been environmental damage. I did say:
>>NEITHER has been a state religion of a major imperial power.
a far more limited claim. They simply do not function well as justifiers of imperial conquest, which parallels, but is certainly not identical with justifying the exploitative "conquest of nature." This does not mean they cannot be made to do this work. You CAN make a model airplane out of mahogany, too!
I hope this clarifies my point. But since I thought it was clear in the first place, I fear it may not have....
Paul Rosenberg
Reason & Democracy
RznDemo@aol.com
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:42:55 -0500
Subject: Re: "Muscular" Mormonism
From: RH4754@cnsvax.albany.edu
Paul;
I would be interested to see if a statistical comparison of the
environmental attitudes of specific religious groups as opposed to rather
general and anecdotal statements. Of course one would have to compensate
for political and economic differences.
As opposed to simply dismissing the point of several scholars I guess I would like to see a fairer discussion of the growing conservativisation of the West.
Ron Helfrich
History
UAlbany
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 10:28:43 -0500
From: Mark Stoll <marks@admin.stedwards.edu>
Subject: Re: "Muscular" Mormonism
From: RznDemo@aol.com
>From "A Voice in the Wilderness", an article about poet (and longtime Zen practitioner) Gary Snyder by Bob Blanchard in "The Progressive", November 1995.
"Snyder draws a connection between the Buddhist teaching of respect for all life and his political commitment. 'Buddhism is one of the few religious and philosophical systems on a world scale that asserts the ethical value of the nonhuman, What Buddhism contributes to environmental politics is a profound spirit of compassion. In the Buddhist view, everything in the world has value, has authenticity. Ultimately, this goes beyond humans and animals and is an attitude of regard toward rocks, plants, clouds. Do you objectify and commodify the world when you look at it? Or do you see it as worthy, as beautiful, as full of its own intrinsic value.?'"
Paul Rosenberg
Reason & Democracy
RznDemo@aol.com
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"
[an error occurred while processing this directive]