Orr and Armageddon: Building a Coalition
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Conservation in Context Editor’s Note: The April 2005 “Conservation in Context” by David Orr (“Armageddon Versus Extinction”) and the responses by Rick Flood and John B. Cobb Jr. have drawn a greater-than-typical response from readers. These responses range from fully supportive and complimentary to strongly disagreeing and critical, reflecting the inherently polarizing nature of this subject. At least eight informal email responses to Orr thanked him for addressing this issue and urged his continued attention to the matter. They included several responses from self-identified Christians (including evangelicals). One stated “I am a long-time member of the society and also a conservative Christian in my theology and practice. I am in strong, if not complete, agreement with you . The wrong-headed ethic dominating the religious fundamentalists that you describe is not only destructive to the witness of the Church, but is also corrupted in its foundational world view. It does not represent the true message of Scripture.”Another stated “I do agree that Evangelicals are not all of one mind and that some have vigorously defended the Creation. Having said this, however, the weight of Evangelicals on the right-wing has been otherwise and perversely so in the present political climate.” Other responses were similarly supportive, and I personally know of several cases of readers urging their colleagues to read this column as being especially important and pertinent. Conversely, four formal submittals to the journal were critical of Orr in various ways, and they are published here, along with a response from Orr. My intention is to give voice to those who disagree with David Orr or believe he oversimplified the matter or disparaged their world views. I hope this further exchange will clarify some points raised and that readers will gain further insights into various perspectives on this sensitive topic. In the end we all, I think, strive toward a world in which war, fear, and destruction are replaced by peace, optimism, and creativity, with flourishing human and biological diversity ad infinitum. Gary K. Meffe. Orr and Armageddon: Building a Coalition The essays by David Orr and Rick conservation. It was the Evangelical on the issues when it is possible. Flood on conservative Christianity Environmental Network, not conser- There is common ground for lobby- and the extinction crisis make impor- vation biologists or the Sierra Club, ing to protect species and wilder- tant points but are too simplistic to that stopped Newt Gingrich’s at- ness and to battle global warming. inform a sound political strategy. tempt to dismantle the U.S. Endan- Elections are more problematic. Con- The beliefs they find problem- gered Species Act (Barcott 2001). servative Christians, like most Ameri- atic—denial of evolution, seeing the More recently, Richard Cizik, leader cans, cast ballots based on the two or world as black and white, embrac- of the National Association of Evan- three issues they feel most strongly ing apocalypse—are most accurately gelicals (which represents 30 million about. The vast majority of Ameri- termed fundamentalist. Fundamen- people), stated that Christians have cans support conservation, but that talism holds all aspects of doctrine, a duty to care for Creation, and he is is not how they vote, as the current not just the most basic truths, to be sa- working toward this (Solomon 2005). occupants of the U.S. Congress and cred and inerrant (Rappaport 1999). There are even challenges to antievo- White House reflect. Our challenge Although preoccupied by the next lutionism among conservative Chris- is to make conservation a top prior- world, fundamentalists are also quite tians. Professor Richard Colling, a mi- ity. focused on this one, hence their ef- crobiologist at Olivet Nazarene, ar- Conservative Christians are only fortstoenact their beliefs into law. In gues forcefully for evolution in his one important constituency that anti- contrast, the hallmark of evangelical- classes and new book (Begley 2004). conservationist politicians rely on. ism is aggressive proselytizing. Many He is in a minority, but there are many The Republican Party elite, which in- evangelicals are fundamentalists and reasons people support conservation cludes extractive industries most ve- vice versa, but the two should not that have nothing to do with evolu- hemently opposed to conservation, be conflated. Conservationists evan- tion. has fashioned an electoral coalition gelize. Conservationists cannot afford to consisting of those who resent the Neither evangelicals nor funda- write anyone off. We need to work civil rights legislation of the 1960s, mentalists are uniformly opposed to with evangelicals and other groups the conservation and environmental 1685 Conservation Biology 1685–1686 C 2005 Society for Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00308.x 1686 Conservation in Context Johns legislation of the 1970s, legalization them. Their myopia is reinforced by on red ink, war, mendacity, and eco- of abortion, legislation recognizing their knee-jerk response to antigov- logical denial.” Such statements are women and homosexuals as full cit- ernment rhetoric and a lazy media. not based on political observation, izens, and a media that frequently of- These voters see government as the but ungrounded hope. (The pow- fends conservative values. This coali- problem rather than part of the solu- erful frequently dismiss the truth, tion was built with steadfastness of tion and believe any who seek public and the Roman Empire—only one purpose and strategic discipline over solutions to public problems are sus- example—lasted for 500 years under the last 40 years—a steadfastness and pect. Of course, the elite propagating Orr’s conditions.) Ungrounded hope, discipline conservationists would do this antigovernment faith does not as Ronald Wright (2005) observed well to learn from. hesitate to use government for their “...drives us to invent new fixes for Although extractive industries give purposes. And to the degree govern- old messes, which in turn create ever money to both parties, they favor ment is in their hands, it is part of the more dangerous messes. Hope elects Republicans, who have long ceased problem. the politician with the biggest empty being the party of Teddy Roosevelt. Undercutting this coalition and promise...and fuels the engine of But conservationists need to recog- creating an effective alternative is capitalism.” Ben Franklin also offered nize that both U.S. political parties paramount to achieving conservation some sound political advice: “Men consist of wealthy, powerful inter- goals. This will not be accomplished are saved in this world not by faith, ests, and political professionals. The through “popular education” or ap- but by the want of it.” former give the majority of money peals “to the facts,” or by simply to campaigns and control the insti- confronting anticonservation beliefs. tutions whose cooperation govern- Facts do not change belief systems, David M. Johns ment requires to rule. These inter- including the (mis)perception of in- ests are able to bargain to ensure that terests that in part underlie political Hatfield School of Government, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97207, U.S.A., email their material interests are protected action, and facts do not alter inter- [email protected] by successful candidates. It is the elite ests. What does work is carefully tar- coalition in each party that struggles geted long-term organizing, recruit- to fashion an electoral coalition of ment through social networks, strate- Literature Cited voters that can deliver a victory. Mere gic bargaining with other organized voters, however, are not in a position interests, and speaking in a language Barcott, B. 2001. For God so loved the world. to directly bargain with candidates; audiences understand. These are the Outside 26:3:84–126 Begley, S. 2004. Tough assignment: teach- they must largely settle for symbolic means to a coalition that can effec- ing evolution to fundamentalists. The Wall rewardsinexchange for their votes. tively reward and punish power hold- Street Journal, 3 December:A15. As Orr notes, the elite-voter coali- ers over the long term. Rappaport, R. A. 1999. Ritual and religion in tion that elected the current U.S. We will never succeed in our work the making of humanity. Cambridge Uni- government is rife with contradic- if we indulge in our own mysti- versity Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom. Solomon, D. 2005. Earthy evangelist. New York tions. Virtually all the culturally con- cism. Flood suggests speaking truth Times Magazine, 3 April:17. servative groups are injured materi- to power, and Orr offers that it is Wright, R. 2005. A short history of progress. ally by the elite that has organized “impossible to run a country for long Carroll and Graff, New York. Conservation Biology Volume 19, No. 6, December 2005.