Secular Right | Reality & Reason

Aug/14

3

God, the EPA and Climate Change Regulation

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someoneShare on TumblrShare on Google+

Green churchFrom Climate Progress:

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Speaking to three administrators for the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday, David Kepley, an elder and deacon at the Providence Presbyterian Church, quoted Leviticus.

“God said ‘the land is mine; with me you are but aliens and tenants,’” he said. “‘Throughout the land that you hold, you shall provide for the redemption of the land.’”

To be wasteful of the land’s bounty … is not just unproductive, but is an affront to God.

The verses, Kepley said, allude to several themes. For one, God has encouraged us not just to draw sustenance from the land, but to replenish it — to act as stewards of Creation. For another, the verses compare humans to “renters” in God’s house, meaning we can’t just trash God’s house with unmitigated pollution.

“To me this means that to be wasteful of the land’s bounty or to despoil it with substances that are harmful to people or other life forms is not just unproductive, but is an affront to God,” Kepley said. “In my view, the EPA has identified one of those areas where we humans have ignored our role as good stewards of the Creation.”

Kepley was just one of at least 28 religious leaders who urged the EPA at two D.C. hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday not to weaken — and at times to strengthen — its proposed regulations on carbon emissions from coal plants. The proposed rule represents the Obama Administration’s most ambitious move yet to combat one of the main drivers behind climate change.

…On Tuesday and Wednesday, leaders from Presbyterian, Episcopal, Evangelical, Lutheran, Methodist, Quaker, and Baptist congregations spoke out in strong support of the rule, with most speakers calling it a moral obligation to God. Leaders from Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and Baha’i groups also testified in support of the rule.

Arguing for such rules on a scientific basis is fine, but this, well….

Taxpayers will, of course, have funded this set of sermons ‘hearing’: Quite why escapes me.

· ·

4 comments

  • jbsay · August 3, 2014 at 9:15 pm

    Arguing on a scientific basis does nto necescarily have merit either.

    The existance of a problem does nto in and of itself justify government intervention.

    In 1900 in NYC each day 1,000,000lb of horseshit and 250,000 gal of horse urine were produced every day.

    The automobile solved that problem.

  • BehindTheLines · August 4, 2014 at 1:58 am

    “To be wasteful of the land’s bounty … is not just unproductive, but is an affront to God.”

    To me this means, “Drill, baby, drill!”

  • CJColucci · August 4, 2014 at 4:56 pm

    Obviously, the religious case for how we should treat the natural environment has no power to persuade those outside the faith, but it is not for those outside the faith to tell those within that they are incorrect about what their faith requires.

  • Ken Glick (EEI) · August 4, 2014 at 8:03 pm

    I consider the religious or nonreligious issue of how we treat our environment to beirrelevant; common sense says that we have to protect the planet that sustains us. Faith simply does not enter into the discussion.

<<

>>

Theme Design by devolux.nh2.me