by kevin, on September 21st, 2009
If you need an example to illustrate the depth, and absurdity, of the rhetoric being used by sustainability opponents, look no further than the 2009 Values Voter Summit held last week. This annual gathering of conservative thought leadership is a veritable who’s who of republican family values champions. Speaking this year are people such as Rep. Michele Bachmann, Rep. and House Minority Leader John Boehner, Former Governor Mike Huckabee, Senator Mitch McConnell, Bill O’Reilly, and Carrie Prejean, and many more.
The most notable part of this event was a breakout session titled Global Warming Hysteria: The New Face of the “Pro-Death” Agenda. The session description lists three questions. Why did the President’s science adviser support coerced abortions to protect the planet? Why are the top abortion funders underwriting efforts to co-opt evangelicals on global warming? If people are the problem, what’s the final solution?
I suppose they cannot overlook any opportunity to mix in an anti-abortion message. Could they have used a more obvious Nazi/Hitler reference – a pro-death agenda linked to the expression final solution? This is an excellent example of a group releasing their grip on moderate language and dropping to the lowest level of fear-mongering and suggestive hate-messaging. How can their aim possibly be a legitimate interest to engage in reasonable dialogue?
What’s really frightening is the fact that I haven’t changed a word or altered the context. This is directly from their program schedule. The session was run by Dr. Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. Digging through his organization’s web site, it seems their anti global warming rationale is centered on the idea that moving toward sustainability will lead to hundreds of millions of deaths throughout the world – but primarily on the African continent. If they are so concerned with African lives, why don’t they do something for them? I couldn’t find any initiatives or programs listed on their site suggesting support or help for African poor. But more importantly, their premise totally ignores the suffering already present on that continent. Around the world, an estimated 2.3 billion people (approximately one third of global population) currently suffer accelerated death rates due to hunger and malnutrition. In Africa today, hundreds of millions are already dying from starvation, contaminated water, malaria, aids, and tuberculosis. Add to those genocide, civil war, and other tragedies induced by their fellow man, and you have a remarkably flawed existing system. In Sub-Saharan Africa, sixty percent of the population lacks access to clean water. Maintaining the status quo is already a “pro-death” stance. Using the plight of Africa as their primary objection to global warming hysteria should be embarrassing if it weren’t so pathetic. Their feigned concern for these truly disadvantaged people is a disgusting attempt to redirect the issue. Shame on them for trying to use the specter of hypothetical future death to instill irrational fear when death is already ever present for those poor people under the existing system this group advocates maintaining. Deal with the issue directly, don’t deflect.
A humorous aspect regarding the session title is its lack of logic. Speaking personally, I’m engaged in sustainability because I’m terribly troubled that refusing to acknowledge any drawback of industrialization and rejecting the need to take any action jeopardizes future generations. A full-steam-ahead-change-nothing approach is irresponsible and dangerous. Being accountable for the impact of our decisions and actions is a virtue, not a crime. I got involved because I’m concerned with life, not death. It’s scary that the opposition can spin that in such a chilling way.
In case you you think I’m unfairly characterizing this gathering, for context, here’s a list of all breakout sessions at the summit: True Tolerance: Countering the Homosexual Agenda in Public Schools; The Threat of Illegal Immigration; Turning the Tide in Your Generation; Obamacare: Rationing Your Life Away; Marriage: Why It’s Worth Defending and How Redefining It Threatens Religious Liberty; Speechless – Silencing the Christians; The New Masculinity; Thugocracy – Fighting the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy; Defunding Planned Parenthood; Activism and Conservatism: Fit to a Tea (Party); and Faith, Politics, and the Internet: How to Contend for Truth in a Digital Age. My first reaction – that’s one frightened bunch. No doubt they perceive serious attacks being waged against their traditions and values, but does this kind of language serve them well? On the positive side, at least they haven’t limited their myopia to just the environment.
The fanatical rhetoric used by the Value Voters Summit, and supported by affiliated groups, doesn’t advance the conversation. Instead, it only ensures both sides become further entrenched with greater distance between. What good does that do anyone? What do you think? If you think I’m being unfair, let me know.
Hey there everyone i was just introduceing myself here im a first time visitor who hopes to become a daily reader!